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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mental processes. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Please see recent Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International for guidance.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims directed to an apparatus and a method. Products and Processes fall within statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to an exception. In this case, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of a mental process or a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In particular, the process of documenting golf scores to an application can be done mentally.
receiving score data – data collection can be done mentally
receiving condition data – data collection can be done mentally
determining scores – calculations can be done mentally
adjusting scores – calculations can be done mentally
determining a winner – calculations can be done mentally
user devices, one or more sensors
The steps cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting user devices and one or more sensors, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
(Step 2A, prong one: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether there are additional element(s) or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this case, the claims recite user devices and one or more sensors are configured perform the steps.
The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2A, prong two: NO)
Viewing the limitations individually,
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim.
The additional elements, user devices and one or more sensors are configured perform the steps, in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claim simply instructs the practitioner to implement the concept of an electronic method of documenting golf scores with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. When viewed either as individual limitations or as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of determining a setting.
(Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 15-20 have been considered each as whole claim as to the abstract idea and the “significantly more” criterion. While being more specific, the limitations did not make the claims less abstract nor provide “significantly more” to the claims to make them patent eligible.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyomkin (WO 2019/229748, from 8/1/2023 IDS) in view of Solheim et al. (US PG pub 2012/0322582) and Tureaud et al. (US patent 11,471,774)
Tyomkin shows all of the limitations of the claims except for specifying
determining, based on the first actual score and the first projected score, a first score to par associated with the first player; determining, based on the second actual score and the second projected score, a second score to par associated with the second player;
adjusting, based on the one or more condition data, the first score to par and the second score to par; and
determining and displaying, based on the adjusted first score to par and the adjusted second score to par, a winner.
In regards to claims 1, 8 and 15,
Tyomkin shows, page 19, lines 515-520, “Golfers can set up “virtual flights”. In a virtual flight, a “virtual twosome” or “virtual foursome” is created, with at least one of the golfers on a different course from the other members of the virtual flight, for non-limiting example, a virtual foursome consisting of one twosome on course “A” and another twosome on course “B”. Each twosomes would start each hole at about the same time as the other twosome; scoring would be as normal for a foursome.”
The claims refer to steps include a first player on a first course and a second player on a second course. The above citation shows that for all the steps on one course/player can be done for a second course/player.
receiving, from one or more user devices, a first actual score and a first projected score associated with a first player on a first course and a second actual score and second projected score associated with a second player on a second course; (Page 18, line 481, “Automatically posting and sharing scores with an audience in real time. Immediate handicap (HCP) updating”. As for the projected score, the received HCP is a projected score based on the average of the user. See Yu reference (US PG pub 2014/0057735), paragraph [0004], in the background section, “a handicap is an average score of the best 10 rounds of the previous 20 rounds of play. For example, a golfer will have a handicap of 20 if the golfer's average score of playing 18 holes is 92 (92 minus 72).” This is provided as secondary evidence for the definition of a HCP.)
receiving, from one or more sensors, one or more condition data associated with one or more of the first course and the second course; (page 32, lines 875-881, “The two-way communication can include vocal communication, images and any combination thereof. A frame can comprise a 2D image. It can be a frame comprising an image of a portion of a golfer’s swing, an image of a portion of a trajectory of a ball, an analyzed image of at least a portion of a swing, an image of at least a portion of an exemplary swing, an analyzed image of at least a portion of an exemplary golf swing, at least a portion of an exemplary ball trajectory, and any combination thereof.” The two-way communication is for receiving, the imaging is considered to be the sensors, and the golf data is considered to be the one or more condition data. Page 26, lines 695-699, discuss that an environment can be scanned)
In regards to claims 2, 9, 10 and 16-17,
the first projected score comprises at least one of: a projected score to par or a golf handicap, and wherein the second projected score comprises at least one of: a projected score to par or a golf handicap. (see handicap discussion above.)
In regards to claims 3, 11 and 18,
receiving the first actual score associated with the first player on the first course and the second actual score associated with the second player on the second course comprises receiving the first actual score via a first remote computing device associated with a first location and further comprises receiving the second actual score via a second remote computing device associated with a second location. (page 18, lines 481-482, “Automatically posting and sharing scores with an audience in real time. Immediate handicap (HCP) updating.” Also see figure 1B, The communication management system (350).)
In regards to claims 4-5, 12-13, and 19-20
receiving an indication of a game mode,
wherein the game mode comprises at least one of: match play, stroke play, skins, stableford, multiplayer games, scramble, better ball, or league play. (Page 6, lines 170-171, “It is another option of the present invention to provide the system as defined above, additionally configured to automatically generate, for said at least n golfers in a stroke play golf match”. The game mode is stroke play.)
In regards to part of claims 1, 7, 8, and 15,
Solheim et al. teaches, paragraph [0020], “With a golf handicap system incorporating ball rating as described herein, for example, an individual may select a golf ball based on playing weather conditions, course conditions, skill level, etc. for a round of golf. In one example, if an individual is playing a round of golf on a windy day, he or she may choose to play with a golf ball designed to travel a relatively shorter distance to help mitigate or avoid catastrophic mishits. The golf ball may be associated with a relatively higher ball rating, which mitigates the detrimental effects of a "bad-weather" golf day by raising the individual's golf handicap for that round of golf. As a result, an individual's adjusted handicap index as described below may compensate for the less-than-ideal playing conditions.”
Based on the teaching of Solheim et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Tyomkin specify adjusting, based on the one or more condition data, the first score to par and the second score to par in order to make competition more fair when players are on different courses.
In regards to part of claims 1, 8, and 15,
Tureaud et al. teaches, column 12, lines 29-33, “In one example, accounting for the golf handicap may involve subtracting the handicap score modifier from the total number of strokes (e.g., gross score) to produce a modified score (e.g., net score), which is then used to determine the final score.”
In regards to part of claims 1, 8, and 15,
Tureaud et al. teaches, column 11, lines 64-65, “Scoring module 234 may determine a winner based on the one or more scores.”
In regards to claims 6 and 14
Tureaud et al. teaches, column 12, lines 47-55, “After determining the winner, computing device 140 may use scoring module 234 to indicate the winner to one or more users or user devices. Computing device 140 may indicate the winner by providing data that indicates the winning participant(s), the winning score(s), or a combination thereof. The data being provided may be referred to as winning data and may be displayed on a device, transmitted to another device, or may be incorporated into video content 141 using video component 148.”
Based on the teaching of Tureaud et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Tyomkin specify the determining, based on the first actual score and the first projected score, a first score to par associated with the first player; determining, based on the second actual score and the second projected score, a second score to par associated with the second player and determining and displaying, based on the adjusted first score to par and the adjusted second score to par, a winner in order to show transparent calculations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to 35 USC 101
Applicant asserts that the human mind cannot "receiv[e], from one or more user devices, a first actual score and a first projected score associated with a first player on a first course and a second actual score and second projected score associated with a second player on a second course," nor "receiving, from one or more sensors, one or more condition data associated with one or more of the first course and the second course." The examiner does not concur. A person is more than capable of keeping score, predicting a poor score on a hard hole, and feeling if it is rainy and windy. This data can easily be transmitted by phone.
Applicant asserts that there is an improvement in technology because a golf match can be played simultaneously on different golf courses, which saves time and availability. The examiner does not concur. This is an improvement to the abstract idea, not a technical improvement.
Applicant asserts that the claims meet the “significantly more” criterion because the sensing devices "may comprise one or more temperature sensors, one or more precipitation sensors, one or more pressure sensors, one or more light sensors, one or more wind sensors, one or more soil sensors, one or more solar radiation sensors, one or more visibility sensors, one or more ground tremor sensors" that gather condition data used to adjust scores. This is a moot point because these specific sensors are not claimed.
In regards to art
Applicant asserts that the combination of Tyomkin and Solheim et al. do not teach "adjusting, based on the one or more condition data, the first score to par and the second score to par." The claims specifically require "receiving, from one or more sensors, one or more condition data associated with one or more of the first course and the second course" and then "adjusting, based on the one or more condition data, the first score to par and the second score to par." Solheim does not teach receiving condition data from sensors and using that sensor-derived data to adjust scores to par.
The examiner does not concur. From the rejection above Solheim teaches, “The golf ball may be associated with a relatively higher ball rating, which mitigates the detrimental effects of a "bad-weather" golf day by raising the individual's golf handicap for that round of golf. As a result, an individual's adjusted handicap index as described below may compensate for the less-than-ideal playing conditions.” Adjusting a handicap for a "bad-weather" golf day or less-than-ideal playing conditions clearly meets the limitation. The examiner apologizes for the typographical error of citing paragraph [0024] when the quotation set forth in the rejection is quoting paragraph [0020].
Applicant asserts that the motivation provided, “in order to make competition more fair when players are on different courses” is impermissible hindsight. The examiner does not concur. Tyomkin already shows players on different courses. Soldeim et al. adjusts handicaps, which is done to facilitate making matches more fair. The art is analogous and solves a common problem in any competition.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL A CUFF whose telephone number is (571)272-6778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571 272-7147. 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.
/MICHAEL A CUFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights