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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0118220, filed on 9/19/2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1 and 3 are murky and unclear. 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
The claims (i.e., claims 4 and 5) are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. The recitation of “OB” (e.g., an obstacle), is a reference character (applicant page 8, lines 7-10). Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistency with the use of the terms “ball” (e.g., uses a “the ball” line 3 or “a ball” line 8) or “a wood driver”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vale US 10,682,569 (“Vale”).
As per claim 1, Vale discloses a par 4 golf system applied to golf links having a par 3 golf course (Figs. 1-19; 3:44-19:30; note for example Fig. 4 as a game of a par 4), comprising: a green configured to play golf on a golf course (to include a green 14, an approach area 18, and a fairway landing 22)(Fig. 1; 3:44-55; note also Figs. 2-3 in conjunction to 4:5-5:10, regarding the golf green to play the golf game; note Fig. 4, 5:11-31 as a par 4 can be played upon the golf course); and a screen tee box disposed on one side of the green (simulator building 26; Fig. 1; note Figs. 5 and 6, 5:33-6:7 as the simulator building includes a screen 154 and a tee mat 150), and provided in every hole for allowing golfers to perform tee off with a driver, wherein the screen tee box is configured to determine a desired driver distance with a red tee, a white tee or a blue tee for women, beginners or a single golfer (such as from virtual tees 34, Fig. 1; note Fig. 7 (6:8-20) and Figs. 12-15, at least 7: 20-60, as a golfer “allocated” a desired tee, e.g., red, white, blue, etc. based upon a golfer skills and alike; note for example 14:11-45 as tee options are been given based upon “Infinite tees testing”; or using any other tees in 14:46-15:12).
With respect to the driver as “a wood driver” it is noted that A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Exparte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The examiner takes the position that Vale’s system to calculate tee strokes of a driver (see for example Figs. 12-15 and 14:11+ as the driver is iron), is fully capable to be perform with a wood driver.
As per claim 2, with respect to further comprising first to fourth tee boxes disposed outside the screen tee box with different attributes, wherein the system is configured for the golfer to select any one of the first to fourth tee boxes on a screen with a program pre-programed and installed therein according to a pitch, distance, or direction of a ball hit by the golfer with the wood driver from the screen tee box, note Fig. 7 (6:8-20), as at least four tee allocated with different colors (based upon skill levels); note as the tee is selected relevant to a distance from the tee 34 onto the, golf course areas; note at least 2:55-3:2, 9:14-51, 11:8-18 and 12:36-13:11 as the computer, programed calculate the distance of a tee shot).
As per claim 3, with respect to wherein the program is automatically executed by a system controller, note Fig. 5 regarding computer 166 in conjunction to at least 9:14-51, 11:8-18 and 12:36-13:11, as the computer-controller, programed to execute the calculation of the different tee shots onto the screen tee (i.e., simulator building 26), to determine where a ball landed on the golf course.
As per claim 4, with respect to wherein the first tee box is a means for a golfer who, when hitting a ball with a driver from the screen tee box, causes the ball to enter an OB or a hazard or for a golfer who, when attempting a driver shot, causes the ball to place in the fairway at a sufficient distance, the second tee box is a means for a golfer who, when hitting a ball with the wood driver from the screen tee box, causes the ball to enter a fairway sand trap, the third tee box is a means for a golfer who, when hitting a ball with the wood driver from the screen tee box, causes the ball enter a rough, the fourth tee box is a means for a golfer who, when hitting a ball with the driver from the screen tee box, does not secure enough distance by the ball hit by him or her, note Fig.4, and 5:11-32, as the tee shots are calculated been falling into obstacles, penalty, fairways and etc. note 11:8-42 and 13:12-40, as the computer-processor calculates the tee shot and the “distance” (virtual) the ball lands upon a location of the golf course/green; see for example Figs. 7 and 8 (6:8-30) as a display provides with such data as a tee shot land upon hole 10, golf course; another example, Fig. 8 indicates that the ball landed near mat 42 ,calculated as 181 yards to the green; with respect to and as the golfer hits a second shot toward the green from the tee box determined by the program of the system controller, each hole is finished, note Figs.1-4, in conjunction to 3:55-4:55, 5:10-32, and Figs 7-9, in conjunction to at least 6:8-47 , 11:19-42, and 13:24-40, after the calculation of the tee shot, the ball would been placed upon the actual golf green/course (relative to a particular mat), to take the second shot, to finish the hole.
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the system is programmed to give a predetermined penalty point to a golfer who, when hitting a ball with the wood driver from the screen tee box, causes the ball hit by him or her to enter the OB or hazard, and as the golfer who receives the penalty point hits a third or fourth shot toward the green from the tee box determined by the program of the system controller, each hole is finished, note Fig. 4 (5:10-32) as the system configure to detect a penalty tee shot (areas 142 and 146), via the computer system (e.g., 166) to panelized a tee shot landed upon any of the penalty areas (see also 5:33-67); see also, Fig. 17 (9:52-65) and Fig. 18 (9:66-10:19) as method of playing the game, to include playing a tee shot (step 302), calculating golf landing (step 306/310; in the case of a par 4, e.g., Fig. 4 (5:10+) in any area such landing 22 or penalty 142/146 relative to a corresponding mat 42 and/or 46) and finish the hole (step 314).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 4/6/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711