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 § 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) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vale US 10,682,569 (“Vale”) in view of Yoshikawa et al JP2019063095A (“Yoshikawa”) and Lee et al KR102009622B1 (“Lee”).
As per claim 1, Vale discloses a par 4 golf system applied to golf links having a golf course (Figs. 1-19; 3:44-19:30; note for example Fig. 4 as a game of a par 4), comprising: 18 par 4 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 and 4 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 on every hole for allowing golfers to 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);
first, second, third, and fourth tee boxes having different attributes and disposed outside the screen tee box (at least Figs. 12-14 in conjunction to 7:20-6, 10:59-11:18 as there are 8 different tees), wherein the first tee box corresponds to a golfer whose ball, when hit with the driver club from the screen tee box, enters an out-of-bounds (OB) area or a hazard, or to a golfer whose ball, upon a driver shot attempt, lands on a fairway with a sufficient distance (at least in Fig. 7 6:8-20; Fig. 11 7:1-19 (hazard 274) and 15:21-52 (water), the second tee box corresponds to a golfer whose ball, when hit with the driver club from the screen tee box, enters a fairway sand trap (Fig. 7 (sand 198) and 6:8-20; Fig. 10; and 15:53-16:16) , the third tee box corresponds to a golfer whose ball, when hit with the driver club from the screen tee box, enters a rough (Figs. 1 and 3 in conjunction to 3:44-4:7 regarding rough landing 38), and the fourth tee box corresponds to a golfer whose ball, when hit with the driver club from the screen tee box, fails to secure a sufficient distance (at least Fig. 8; 6:21-30 regarding to sufficient distance; as well as Fig. 17, 9:52-65 as the simulator determine the distance the ball travel to calculate where the ball lands; and 13:24-38);
a system controller configured to execute a pre-programmed program according to one or more selected from the group consisting of a trajectory, a driving distance, and a direction of a golf ball hit from the screen tee box, and to determine one of the first to fourth tee boxes from which the golfer performs a second shot toward the green, such that the golfer continues each hole by hitting the second shot from the determined tee box (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; also note 8:3-67) ;
a wireless communication unit connected to the system controller (Fig. 16; 9:1-51) and a mobile terminal connected to the system controller through the wireless communication unit (Fig. 16 and 9:1-51).
With respect to the system as “a par 4 golf system applied to golf links having a par 3 golf course”, as recites in the preamble, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)
Vale is not specific as the golf game is 18 par 3 on the golf course.
Vale is not specific regarding wherein the system controller is configured to transmit, in real time, program information including at least one of game progress, a player order according to penalty points, and penalty points to the mobile terminal.
With respect to the golf game is 18 par 3 on the golf course, in a similar golf systems, Yoshikawa discloses a golf game is 18 par 3 on a golf course (Figs. 2 and 5; page 2, 2nd-4th pars.; page 5, 4th and 5th pars. And page 8, 2nd -5th par.). Therefore, 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 to form Vale’s golf game is 18 par 3 on the golf course for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Yoshikawa’s suggestions that such game is much desired to beginner and intermediate golfers to enjoy playing in a desirable time (e.g., abstract “To provide a golf game method which enables players to play one or a half round in a short time by using a main course of a certain golf course according to normal rules and enables beginner/intermediate amateur golfers having no skills to play one round of main course in a prescribed time and the amateur elder golfers with a declined strength to enjoy playing one round or a half”). In addition, attention to Vale’s 10:54+” The golf simulators may be located in the tee shot Landing Area of par 4 and par 5 golf holes or in the tee box area of a par 3 golf hole” and 16:41+” A par 3 is generally achieved by using mats in the landing area of the hole as tee boxes. Par 3 tee shots can be hit from the simulator”, thus combining Vale with Yoshikawa has a reasonable expectation of success as the modification will not frustrate the intended purposes of Vale to also utilizes his game for a golf game of 18 par 3 on the golf course.
With respect to wherein the system controller is configured to transmit, in real time, program information including at least one of game progress, a player order according to penalty points, in a similar field of system for playing golf, Lee discloses wherein a system controller is configured to transmit, in real time, program information including at least one of game progress, a player order according to penalty points (the system controller to record golfers’ penalties in page 6, 5th par.-page 9, 1st par.; note Figs. 1A-13B in conjunction to page 9, 2nd par.-page 10, 2nd par. as Lee gives examples regarding the real-time recorded penalty points of golfers). Therefore, 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 to form Vale’s wherein the system controller is configured to transmit, in real time, program information including at least one of game progress, a player order according to penalty points for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizes known manner to record and display golfer’s performances for purposes of “aiding and teachings” as well as declaring winners and loser according to the points system. Within the modified Vale- Lee the mobile device (as taught by Vale, Fig. 16) would have recorded and disapplied as such.
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the system is programmed to give a predetermined penalty point to a golfer who, when hitting the ball with the driver from the screen tee box, causes the ball hit by him or her to enter the out-of-bounds or hazard, note Vale at 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); wherein the golfer having received the penalty is allowed to complete each hole by hitting an additional shot toward the green from the tee box determined by the program of the system controller (at least 15:21+” Water hazards found in the landing area of the golf hole will be simple roped off areas or else well-defined areas of unique terrain (differing from the surrounding terrain) such as rock, mulch, artificial turf or netting/fabric and identified as “Water Hazard”. These areas represent exactly the boundaries of water hazards depicted by the simulation software. A golfer who hits a ball into the water hazard on the simulator tee shot will receive instructions from the simulator such as to “Add one stroke to your score and drop ball (put into play) in a specified location”. The location may be provided as a distance (forwards/backwards and left/right) from a 2.sup.nd shot golf mat or marker or else from other markers (referred to as Watermarks, possible future trademark) used specifically for locating the golf ball's point of entry to the water hazard. When playing the next shot after landing in a “Water Hazard”, the golfer may be hitting off of natural grass and not off of a mat.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are partially not persuasive and are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant stated “ Furthermore, Vale does not disclose or suggest the tee box system or the specific system requirements recited in the present claims.(remarks page 7); Applicant also respectfully traverses because Vale does not disclose or suggest the first through fourth tee boxes as recited in the present claims. (remarks page 9); Applicant specifically notes that Vale does not disclose or suggest an embodiment in which a tee box is used for when a golfer is deemed to have not hit the golf ball a sufficient distance, and thus does not anticipate this aspect of the claimed invention.(remarks page 10); Applicant also respectfully submits that Vale does not disclose or suggest the specifics of the presently recited system controller, wireless communication unit, and mobile terminal. For example, Vale does not disclose or suggest a specific system where a system controller executes a pre-programmed program based on at least one of a trajectory, driving distance, or direction of the golf ball, determines one of the first to fourth tee boxes for the golfer's second shot (remarks page 10).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Vale in 12:40+” states “The simulation software can accurately map and display on the screen the following segments of the golf hole: The Virtual Only portion of the golf hole between the tee box and the landing area; the Physical Landing Area of the golf hole which includes the Simulator Building and the 2.sup.nd Shot Mats; The Physical Approach Area & Green (including surrounding area beside and beyond the green). The simulator software, through the use of a code given to the golfer or signal from the Golf Clerk located in the ProShop or CheckIn Area, will only begin after groups have checked in and paid for their rounds of golf.” And in 12:24+”The simulator software may allocate areas (zones) of the landing area, that when the simulated tee shot lands on, will give instructions to the user to proceed to locations on the physical course with the below considerations. When using mats, software may give slight yardage increase (advantage) when simulated drive lands in fairway and may give slight yardage decrease (disadvantage) when drive lands outside of fairway depending on location of drive compared to nearby mat locations. In addition to identifying the nearest golf mat, the simulator software will provide precise distance and direction from the mat to the spot in the landing area of the physical golf course where the simulated tee shot would have come to rest. This location will be provided as a distance (forwards/backwards and left/right) from a 2.sup.nd shot golf mat or marker. The golfer will then have the choice of hitting their next shot from the mat or the precise position depending on preference”.
Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions, Vale’s simulator is fully capable to be placed upon a golf course to calculate a golfer initial tees to play a golf game upon the golf course. In addition, with respect to the different tees, consider 14:11+” The simulator software will allow golfers to choose the Infinite Tees (tee selector) option from either the first tee simulator building or any simulator building on the course. A golfer will hit some quantity of shots into the simulator (example 5) using their driver or longest distance club. Software will use launch monitor data from all or some subset of shots (example best 3 shots) taken for later computation. Additionally, the golfer will hit some quantity of shots into the simulator (example 5) using their 7 iron. If golfer does not have a 7 iron, they can hit a combination of the next closest clubs (example 3 shots with 6 iron and 2 shots with 8 iron). Software will use launch monitor data from all or some subset of 7 iron shots (example best 3 shots) taken for computation alongside the data taken when hitting driver. In its simplest form, software will use the sum of average driver and average 7 iron distance to then calculate an Infinite Tee Rating. The rating scale graduations will correlate to very small graduations of tee box spacing (example 1 or 2 yards). Alternatively, for an even more accurate calculation, the software can use additional or other launch monitor data as part of the Infinite Tee calculation. This calculation might include, for example, variation (average, median, range or standard deviation) of driver distance, 7 iron distance, club face angle, swing speed, smash factor, angle of attack, etc. . . . . This data will help to gauge consistency of the golfer's swing which is a factor in how much advantage a golfer may need in tee position.” Also 14:58+” The simulator software will allow golfer to play a non-standard tee box position based on their exact Infinite Tee Rating. A golfer would play their round from a tee box position matched perfectly based on the Infinite Tee Rating. This position may reside in the same tee box as a standard tee position (example blue tees), however it may be some number of yards closer or further away than the defined tee position (example blue tees) depending on the Infinite Tee Rating and the graduations in yards between Infinite Tee Ratings. These exact graduations may vary from hole to hole depending on hole design, however an Infinite Tee Rating, for example 80 will always be some number of yards closer to the hole than for example 85.”. Accordingly Vale’s golf system performed and provide data as claimed.
In addition, regarding the tees “first, second, third, and fourth tee boxes having different attributes and disposed outside the screen tee box”, note at least Figs. 12-14 in conjunction to 7:20-6, 10:59-11:18 as there are 8 different tees Ratings falling within a certain range will result in software recommending to the golfer to play from one of a number of standard tee boxes (purple, yellow, red, orange, white, green, blue, black).;
In addition, regarding “a system controller” (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; also note 8:3-67); and regarding “a wireless communication unit connected to the system controller (Fig. 16; 9:1-51) and a mobile terminal connected to the system controller through the wireless communication unit (Fig. 16 and 9:1-51).
With respect to “Applicant respectfully traverses because Vale does not disclose or suggest the use of its system on a par-3 hole, much less an entire par-3 course comprising 18 par-3 holes as recited in the present claims”(remarks page 7) and transmits, in real time, program information including at least one of game progress, player order according to penalty points, and penalty points to the mobile terminal (remarks page 10), such new limitations are taught by the references to Yoshikawa and Lee, respectively, as set forth above, and thus applicant’s arguments to that matters are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 7/15/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights