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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 10/27/25. Claims 1 and 15 have been amended, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method in a data processing system for providing golf experiential content and golf social content to a user. The limitation of receiving, by a computing device via a wireless network, a first geographic location of a first mobile device using GPS technology and associated with a first user while the first user is playing a first game of golf, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computing device, first mobile device, network, and GPS technology, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computing device, first mobile device, network, and GPS technology language, receiving in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally noting a location of a mobile device. Similarly, the limitations of: receiving, storing, and providing are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 1. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites a few additional elements – a computing device, first mobile device, network, and GPS technology. The computing device, first mobile device, network, and GPS technology is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computing device, first mobile device, network, and GPS technology amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 2-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2012/0023152 A1 to Felt et al. (hereinafter “Felt”).
Concerning claim 1, Felt discloses a method in a data processing system for providing golf experiential content and golf social content to a user (paragraphs [0014], [0029]), comprising:
receiving, by a computing device via a wireless network, a first geographic location of a first mobile device using GPS technology and associated with a first user while the first user is playing a first game of golf (paragraphs [0001], [0015], [0021], [0022], [0034]);
receiving, by the computing device, a first selection of golf experiential content or golf social content associated with the first user at the received first geographic location (paragraphs [0021], [0029], [0055]);
storing, by the computing device, the first selection of the golf experiential content or the golf social content in a computer-readable medium associated with the first user in association with the received first geographic location (paragraphs [0021], [0029], [0055], [0063]); and
providing, by the computing device, the first selection of the golf experiential content or the golf social content for display in relation to the detected first geographic location by the first mobile device based on a first set of parameters selected by the first user (paragraphs [0052]-[0056]).
Concerning claims 2 and 16, Felt discloses wherein the golf experiential content comprises at least one social media comment received or transmitted at the received first geographic location (paragraphs [0021], [0029], [0055]).
Concerning claims 3 and 17, Felt discloses wherein the golf social content comprises one member of a group comprising: (1) audio, video, or images of the first user at a particular on a golf course, (2) audio, video, or images of other golfers at the particular location of the golf course (3) identifications of other golfers at the received first geographic location or (4) one or more social media posts received or transmitted at the first detected location (paragraphs [0052]-[0056]).
Concerning claim 4, Felt discloses wherein detecting, by a computing device, the first geographic location of a first mobile device associated with a first user while the first user is playing a first game of golf further comprises: automatically detecting the first geographic location (paragraphs [0021], [0028], [0056]).
Concerning claims 5 and 18, Felt discloses further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, a second geographic location of a second mobile device associated with a second user while the second user is playing golf (paragraphs [0015], [0021], [0022]); receiving, by the computing device, a second selection of golf experiential content or golf social content associated with the second user in accordance with the detected second geographic location (paragraphs [0021], [0029], [0055]); storing, by the computing device, the second selection of the golf experiential content or the golf social content in the computer readable medium (paragraphs [0021], [0029], [0055], [0063]); and providing, by the computing device, the second selection of golf experiential content or the golf social content associated with the second user playing a second game of golf previous to the first game of golf by the first user for display by the first mobile device (paragraphs [0052]-[0056]).
Concerning claim 6, Felt discloses further comprising: receiving, by the computing device, a selection of a third selection of golf experiential content or golf social content associated with the second user in accordance with the detected second geographic location; and providing, by the computing device, the selected third selection of the golf experiential content or the golf social content associated with the second user for display by the first mobile device, wherein the third selection of the golf experiential content or the golf social content corresponds to a third game of golf played concurrent with the first game of golf (paragraphs [0052]-[0056]).
Concerning claim 7, Felt discloses wherein the golf experiential content comprises at least one member of a group comprising: weather at a point in time, times of year, events specific to the first user, emoticons, sound of a golf ball strike, or time on a golf course (paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
Concerning claims 8 and 19, Felt discloses further comprising: providing, by the computing device, a plurality of golf courses for display on an interactive map on the first mobile device; receiving, by the computing device, from the first user, a selection of one or more of the golf courses; and providing, by the computing device, a golf course map associated with the selected golf course for display on the first mobile device (paragraphs [0021]-[0026]).
Concerning claims 9 and 20, Felt discloses wherein the first selection of the golf experiential content or the golf social is configured to be overlaid on the golf course map when displayed by the first mobile device (paragraphs [0030], [0047]).
Concerning claim 10, Felt discloses wherein the golf experiential content comprises sending a temperature to the first mobile device for display by the first mobile device (paragraph [0027]).
Concerning claim 11, Felt discloses further comprising: providing, by the computing device, a golf course name or location for display on the first mobile device (paragraphs [0021]-[0026]).
Concerning claim 12, Felt discloses further comprising: providing, by the computing device, a score for display on the first mobile device (paragraph [0001]).
Concerning claim 13, Felt discloses wherein the golf social content indicates one or more other users golfing with the first user at the detected first geographic location (paragraphs [0052]-[0056]).
Concerning claim 14, Felt discloses further comprising: providing, by the computing device, selected first golf content to the second users (paragraphs [0052]-[0056]).
Concerning claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims are not mental steps and the present application solves a specific technical problem and therefore integrate the exception into a practical application. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. That is, other than reciting a computing device, first mobile device, network, and GPS technology, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The computing device, first mobile device, network, and GPS technology is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to the 102 rejection, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., system provides content for display based on user-selected parameters-i.e., configurable settings chosen by the user that control what content is displayed, how it is displayed, and under what conditions. This gives users control over their content viewing experience through parameter-based filtering and customization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites “providing, by the computing device, the first selection of the golf experiential content or the golf social content created by the first user for display in relation to the detected first geographic location by the first mobile device based on a first set of parameters selected by the first user” which is disclosed by Felt in at least paragraphs [0052]-[0056] which describes users able to obtain golf social content created by one or more golfers who played the hole based on the current detected location of the mobile device and the selected content of the user. If the Applicant intends the claim is interpreted as “system provides content for display based on user-selected parameters-i.e., configurable settings chosen by the user that control what content is displayed, how it is displayed, and under what conditions. This gives users control over their content viewing experience through parameter-based filtering and customization”, then the claim needs to be defined as such. Currently Felt reads on the claim limitations as drafted.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., golf experiential content represents content directed to capturing subjective experience, feelings, conditions, and sensory aspects of a golf moment) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Felt discloses a golfer sharing data related to their shot, club, etc. which is interpreted as “golf experiential content” since it is showing how the golfer is experiencing the hole using the club. If Applicant intends for the claim to mean that golf experiential content represents content directed to capturing subjective experience, feelings, conditions, and sensory aspects of a golf moment, then the claim language needs to be defined as such.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sharing among users of a private network on the same platform) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Felt discloses that the content management facility may select golfers to share the content which is interpreted as a private network. If a different definition is intended, then the claims need to reflect the indented meaning.
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 MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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 on 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715