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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/7/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims do not recite a mental process because the claimed method cannot practically be performed in the mind. Applicant submits that because the claim recites an optically-based tracking system generating x,y coordinates and “the human mind cannot receive the output of one or more cameras and generate coordinate data.” The output of a camera is a picture. The mind can clearly and certainly create a grid system overlaid on that picture and generate an x,y coordinate. Merely utilizing a conventional camera and computer to generate the x,y coordinates is not sufficient to overcome the 101 rejection.
Next, Applicant submits that the creation of an “event file” comprising the number of strokes at a particular coordinate is not a mental act. The “file” is merely an accounting and organization of the numbers in a database. The human mind is fully capable of remembering the number of strokes at particular coordinates.
Next, Applicant submits that updating the projected outcome of a tournament based on that historical data cannot be performed by the human mind. The human mind is capable of calculating statistical probabilities through mental arithmetic.
Applicant then submits that even if the limitations could be done by the human mind it cannot be done in real time. From MPEP2161.01 III, “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1 was held to be a mental process.
The Office maintained that the mental processes were not directed to an exception wherein additional elements results in a practical application. Applicant submits that by utilizing hole-by-hole data instead of other data its system increases the sample size by 18x. Merely running the math on 18x more numbers is not a practical application.
Applicant then submits that the Office has not looked at the claim as a whole and has oversimplified the claim limitations. Applicant has not articulated a single limitations that the Office overlooked or ignored.
Finally, Applicant submits that this case is a “close call” and meets the preponderance of evidence standard. The Office is not convinced.
For these reasons the rejection is maintained.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of receiving position coordinates of players and objects, retrieving historical performance statistics of golf players and then organizing the data to come up with a predicted probability of that player’s performance. The claims also contain the method on non-transitory computer readable medium and a system comprising general computer hardware performing the method.
The first step is receiving stroke and position (x,y) coordinates of players and balls and retrieving historical hole-by-hole data for a plurality of holes for plurality of golf tournaments for a plurality of players. This step is merely observation and information gathering.
The next step is clustering the plurality of holes into a plurality of clusters of hole types. This is merely organizing the gathered information.
The next step is generating a strokes-gained metric for each hole type of the historical hole-by-hole data for each player. This step is merely performing an evaluation of the organized information.
The next step is adjusting the strokes gained metric for each hole type based on a field of strength metric associated with each tournament, the field of strength metric representing a strength of a player field in a target tournament. This step is merely refining the evaluation of the organized information.
The next step is generating a probability of player performance of each player for each hole in the target tournament based at least one the adjusted strokes gained metric, wherein the probability of player performance comprises a probability of each player achieving each possible score for each hole. This step is merely making a judgement made on the evaluated information.
The final steps are generating a projected outcome of the target tournament by simulating player performance using the probability of player performance of each player, then updating projected outcome from the stroke information and coordinates using the computer. This step is merely opining the judgement of the evaluated information.
Claims 2-6 merely refine the individual steps taken.
Claim 8 merely performs the method on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim 15 is merely a generic computer performing the method.
Claims 9-13 and 16-19 are analogous to claims 2-6.
Claims 21-23 merely organize human behavior in a tournament based on comparing data between players.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no integration or steps taken on any structure beyond the utilization of a general and generic processor and memory and a conventional camera. The mental steps of observation, organization, evaluation of data, a judgement based thereon and performed by computing system is insufficient for a “practical application” based on MPEP 2106.05(f). The steps above do not improve a computer’s computational functionality or improve any other tangible object.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not add any additional elements beyond a generic computational system.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights