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 to 20 (independent Claims 1, 14, 20, and their dependents) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are drawn to a system, and so are statutory classes under 101. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons. Independent Claims 1 and 20 are representative and are reproduced below; the abstract idea is underlined and the structural limitations are not. The dependent claims have no more structure than the independent claim and fail 101 for similar reasons.
(Claim 1) A pace of play monitoring system for a golf course, the pace of play monitoring system comprising:
a first sensor configured to be positioned on a golf cart and facilitate detecting a location thereof; (accepting input and processing data according to the rules of a game)
a second sensor configured to facilitate detecting tee shots taken at a tee box of a hole of the golf course; and (accepting input and processing data according to the rules of a game)
a control system configured to:
detect that the location of the golf cart is proximate a tee box area for the tee box based on first data acquired with the first sensor; (process data according to the rules of a game)
detect one or more tee shots at the tee box based on second data acquired with the second sensor; (process data according to the rules of a game)
record one or more tee shot timestamps associated with the one or more tee shots; detect when the golf cart leaves the tee box area based on the first data; (process data according to the rules of a game)
identify a respective tee shot timestamp of the one or more tee shot timestamps associated with a respective tee shot of the one or more tee shots immediately preceding the golf cart leaving the tee box area; and (process data according to the rules of a game)
set the respective tee shot timestamp as a start of play for one or more occupants associated with the golf cart. (process data according to the rules of a game, outputting the results of the processing to a user)
(Claim 20) A pace of play monitoring system for a golf course, the pace of play monitoring system comprising: (process data according to the rules of a game)
a golf cart including a microphone and a position sensor; and one or more processing circuits including at least one of (a) a first processing circuit positioned on the golf cart or (b) a second processing circuit positioned remote from the golf cart, the one or more processing circuits configured to:
monitor a position of the golf cart based on position data acquired with the position sensor; (accepting input and processing data according to the rules of a game)
activate the microphone in response to the golf cart being located within a tee box geofence associated with a tee box of the golf course; (process data according to the rules of a game)
detect one or more tee shots at the tee box based on sound data acquired with the microphone; (accepting input and processing data according to the rules of a game)
record one or more tee shot timestamps associated with the one or more tee shots; (process data according to the rules of a game)
deactivate the microphone in response to the golf cart being located outside of the tee box geofence; (process data according to the rules of a game)
identify a respective tee shot timestamp of the one or more tee shot timestamps associated with a respective tee shot of the one or more tee shots immediately preceding the golf cart leaving the tee box geofence; and (process data according to the rules of a game)
set the respective tee shot timestamp as a start of play of a round of golf for one or more occupants associated with the golf cart. (process data according to the rules of a game, outputting the results of the processing to a user)
The claims taken together or individually do not represent an improvement to the abstract idea in an ordered combination. The types of sensors used are not cited as they are in the references applied to the prior art below—no GPS, cameras, microphones (except for Claim 20), strain gauges or RFID in such as in instrumented golf balls or instrumented golf clubs, etc. The claims do not cite specific processor or memory structures for processing data in memory according to the rules of a game. There are no golf swing detectors such as those taught by Shimizu (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2007/0105637 A1, Fig. 1, Paras. 17 to 23). No specific location systems are cited such as (GPS, Glonass, Galileo, inertial navigation system (INS), celestial navigation, WiFi location, cellular location, radio triangulation, radio beacons such as ADF, DME, NDB, VOR, LORAN, etc.) are cited. The claims do not cite specific input structures such as touchscreens, touchpads, directional pads, joysticks, trackballs, keyboards, mice, cameras, or microphones. The claims do not cite specific output structures such as screens, displays, or speakers. The claims do not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computing device or gaming device since they do not represent an improvement in processor speed, memory management, random number generation, thermal management, ergonomics, network speed and management (such as load balancing or rerouting of packets), bus speed and management, authentication, encryption, graphics rendering, or reduced instruction sets for carrying out complex operations (such as RISC processors). Applying an abstract idea to a computer is not patent-eligible (Alice, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf, page 12). Electronic recordkeeping, obtaining data, adjusting balances, issuing automated instructions, creating and maintaining accounts are typical computer functions (Alice, page 15). Requiring the use of a computer to implement the claim does not make it patent-eligible (pages 14 & 15). Communications controllers, data storage units, and data processing systems are typical computer structures (Alice, page 16). Calculation, storage, and transmission are basic computer functions (Alice, page 16). Claims cannot simply be a draftsman’s art (Alice, pages 14 & 16).
Cloud Satchel quoting Bancorp: “To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not.” In Bancorp, the independent claims did not require a computer (at 1431). In Bancorp, the system and method claims were equivalent for patentability under 101 (at 1432). Bancorp’s method claims did not require a computer and were not 101-compliant (at 1433). A computer must be integral to the claimed invention (Bancorp at 1433). A computer used in the claim only for its most basic functions does not make the claim 101-eligible (Bancorp at 1433). Bancorp’s use of computers to track, reconcile, and administer insurance policies only used a computer’s most basic functions, adding nothing to 101 compliance (1434). Limiting the claims to a particular field of use, such as the insurance market, does not fail to preempt the abstract idea (Bancorp at 1434 & 1435). In Amdocs (113 USPQ2d 1565) at 1571, the fact that the claims cannot be carried out by a human being alone does not mean that they are not an abstract idea under 101 (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359-60 and Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351).
The examiner points the applicants to Claim 33 of U.S. patent 5,970,479 A which was the representative claim in the Alice decision. These claim limitations are carried out on presumably a general purpose computer although such is not explicitly cited. The claims are certainly not carried out by specific hardware.
A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party’s shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order, and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing on[e] of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.
The examiner points the applicants to representative Claim 19 of U.S. patent 7,818,399 B1 which was at issue in the DDR Holdings case. This claim in the DDR Holdings case was 101-compliant because it improved the functioning of the computer itself, namely rendering web pages in a web browser. The claims in DDR Holdings cited what was done, and specific steps for how it was done, thus not invoking a judicial exception by preempting all possible ways of what the claim is trying to do. The claims met the second step of the Alice analysis by improving on how web page rendering transactions were carried out over a network such as the Internet, versus how such transactions had been done before.
A system useful in an outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities, the system comprising:
(a) a computer store containing data, for each of a plurality of first web pages, defining a plurality of visually perceptible elements, which visually perceptible elements correspond to the plurality of first web pages;
(i) wherein each of the first web pages belongs to one of a plurality of web page owners;
(ii) wherein each of the first web pages displays at least one active link associated with a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of merchants; and
(iii) wherein the selected merchant, the outsource provider, and the owner of the first web page displaying the associated link are each third parties with respect to one other;
(b) a computer server at the outsource provider, which computer server is coupled to the computer store and programmed to:
(i) receive from the web browser of a computer user a signal indicating activation of one of the links displayed by one of the first web pages;
(ii) automatically identify as the source page the one of the first web pages on which the link has been activated;
(iii) in response to identification of the source page, automatically retrieve the stored data corresponding to the source page; and
(iv) using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the web browser a second web page that displays: (A) information associated with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated, and (B) the plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page.
The examiner finds that wagering games are all rather similar: accepting a wager, playing the game according to the rules comprising generating random outcomes according to rules, determining winning outcomes, determining how much is to be paid for a winning outcome, and paying out the winnings. This breakdown of the wagering claim language is similar to that in precedential case in re Smith (in re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), appeal 2015-1664, U.S. patent application 12/912,410).
Claim 1 at hand in in re Smith is as follows:
1. A method of conducting a wagering game comprising:
[a]) a dealer providing at least one deck of physical playing cards and shuffling the physical playing cards to form a random set of physical playing cards;
[b]) the dealer accepting at least one first wager from each participating player on a player game hand against a banker’s/dealer’s hand;
[c]) the dealer dealing only two cards from the random set of physical playing cards to each designated player and two cards to the banker/dealer such that the designated player and the banker/ dealer receive the same number of exactly two random physical playing cards;
[d]) the dealer examining respective hands to determine in any hand has a Natural 0 count from totaling count from cards, defined as the first two random physical playing cards in a hand being a pair of 5’s, 10’s, jacks, queens or kings;
[e]) the dealer resolving any player versus dealer wagers between each individual player hand that has a Natural 0 count and between the dealer hand and all player hands where a Natural 0 is present in the dealer hand, while the dealer exposes only a single card to the players;
[f]) as between each player and the dealer where neither hand has a Natural 0, the dealer allowing each player to elect to take a maximum of one additional card or standing pat on the initial two card player hand, while still having seen only one dealer card;
[g]) the dealer/banker remaining pat within a first certain predetermined total counts and being required to take a single hit within a second predetermined total counts, where the first total counts range does not overlap the second total counts range;
[h]) after all possible additional random physical playing cards have been dealt, the dealer comparing a value of each designated player’s hand to a final value of the banker’s/dealer’s hand wherein said value of the designated player’s hand and the banker’s/dealer’s hand is in a range of zero to nine points based on a pre-established scoring system wherein aces count as one point, tens and face cards count as zero points and all other cards count as their face value and wherein a two-digit hand total is deemed to have a value corresponding to the one’s digit of the two-digit total;
[i]) the dealer resolving the wagers based on whether the designated player’s hand or the banker’s/dealer’s hand is nearest to a value of 0.
Similarly to the present claims, the claim at hand in in re Smith accepted wagers from players (steps a & b), played the game according to the rules of the game comprising generating random outcomes (steps c to g), determining what the winning conditions are and how much to pay out (step h), and making the winning payouts (step i). The card game of in re Smith would be identical played in a card and table format or in an electronic format.
The examiner points the applicants to the representative claim at hand in non-precedential Planet Bingo. The hardware limitations of the CPU, memory, I/O terminal, and printer are only cited in clause (a). The rest of the claim is functional claim language describing a bingo game that would occur identically in paper ticket format or computerized format with the play of the game and the game results being identical in either format. The court held that the claims in Planet Bingo were ineligible under 101.
A method for playing a game of Bingo which comprises the steps of:
(a) providing a system for managing a game of Bingo which comprises: a computer with a central processing unit (CPU) and with a memory and with a printer connected to the CPU; an input and output terminal connected to the CPU and memory of the computer; and a program in the computer enabling:
(i) input of at least two sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by a player for repetitive play in games of Bingo over a period of time;
(ii) storage of the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player as a group in the memory of the computer;
(iii) assignment of a player identifier unique to the player for the group having the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player wherein the player identifier is assigned to the group for multiple sessions of Bingo;
(iv) retrieval of the group using the player identifier;
(v) selection from the group by the player of at least one of the sets of Bingo numbers preselected by the player and stored in the memory of the computer as the group for play in a selected game of Bingo in a specific session of Bingo wherein a number of sets of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is less than a total number of sets of Bingo numbers in the group;
(vi) addition by the computer of a control number for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected by the player for play in the selected game of Bingo;
(vii) output of a receipt with the control number, the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a price for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a date of the selected game of Bingo and optionally a computer identification number; and
(viii) output for verification of a winning set of Bingo numbers by means of the control number which is input into the computer by a manager of the game of Bingo;
(b) playing the game of Bingo using the set of Bingo numbers wherein the player signals a Bingo to indicate the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is the winning set of Bingo numbers; and
(c) verifying the winning set of Bingo numbers with the control number with the program.
The Bascom decision is relevant to the present claims (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1763, decided June 27th, 2016). The Bascom decision required that the ordered limitations of the claims taken together add something "significantly more" to the abstract idea even though the individual limitations were known in the prior art. The claim at hand in Bascom was found to comply with 101 in light of Alice. Page 15 of Bascom:
“However, we disagree with the district court’s analysis of the ordered combination of limitations. In light of Mayo and Alice, it is of course now standard for a § 101 inquiry to consider whether various claim elements simply recite “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies].” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. The district court’s analysis in this case, however, looks similar to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, except lacking an explanation of a reason to combine the limitations as claimed. The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Page 20 of Bascom: “While the claims of the ’606 patent are directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, BASCOM has adequately alleged that the claims pass step two of Alice’s two-part framework. BASCOM has alleged that an inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea. We find nothing on this record that refutes those allegations as a matter of law or justifies dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting AT&T’s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) and remand so that the case may proceed.”
The McRO decision (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1080 to 2015-1101, decided Sept. 13th, 2016) is relevant to the present claims. The McRO decision stated that an ordered combination of claim limitations can meet the requirements of 101 in light of the Alice decision by improving over what has been already done in the prior art without preempting an abstract idea. Pages 25 and 26 of McRO: “The limitations in claim 1 prevent preemption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of 3-D characters. McRO has demonstrated that motion capture animation provides an alternative process for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions. Even so, we have recognized that “the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The narrower concern here is whether the claimed genus of rules preempts all techniques for automating 3-D animation that rely on rules. Claim 1 requires that the rules be rendered in a specific way: as a relationship between subsequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight to which each phoneme is expressed visually at a particular timing (as represented by the morph weight set). The specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all rules-based means of automating lip synchronization, unless the limits of the rules themselves are broad enough to cover all possible approaches. There has been no showing that any rules-based lip synchronization process must use rules with the specifically claimed characteristics.” Page 27 of McRO: “Here, the structure of the limited rules reflects a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which “any [animator] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized.” Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2119–20 (quotation marks omitted). By incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques. See Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177). Claim 1 of the ’576 patent, therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.” The claim limitations individually or taken together add nothing significantly more in an ordered combination to the abstract idea.
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, 3 to 7, 9, 10, and 12 to 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doaga, et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2005/0250590 A1).
As to Claims 1 and 14: Doaga teaches a pace of play monitoring system for a golf course, the pace of play monitoring system comprising (Abst.; Claim 1; Fig. 1, Paras. 17 to 19):
a first sensor configured to be positioned on a golf cart and facilitate detecting a location thereof (GPS 53, Fig. 5, Para. 47);
a second sensor configured to facilitate detecting tee shots taken at a tee box of a hole of the golf course (cameras at tee boxes taught at Para. 54 and Claim 10); and
a control system configured to:
detect that the location of the golf cart is proximate a tee box area for the tee box based on first data acquired with the first sensor (Fig. 3, Para. 33, tee-off area; also Para. 54 and Claim 10; start time is tracked at Para. 22 and Claim 22);
detect one or more tee shots at the tee box based on second data acquired with the second sensor (shots recorded with cameras, Paras. 54 to 56);
record one or more tee shot timestamps associated with the one or more tee shots (time stamps are recorded at Para. 55, see also Paras. 58 and 59);
detect when the golf cart leaves the tee box area based on the first data (GPS 53, Fig. 5, Para. 47; the cameras at the tee box recording the time stamps as discussed above and the GPS devices on the golf carts will necessarily know when the golf carts have left the tee area);
identify a respective tee shot timestamp of the one or more tee shot timestamps associated with a respective tee shot of the one or more tee shots immediately preceding the golf cart leaving the tee box area (time stamps are recorded at Para. 55, see also Paras. 58 and 59); and
set the respective tee shot timestamp as a start of play for one or more occupants associated with the golf cart (time stamps are recorded at Para. 55, see also Paras. 58 and 59; golfers are expected to make their plays in a reasonable amount of time, Para. 13; compliance with predetermined start times is recorded at Paras. 22, 31, and 58).
As to Claim 3: Doaga teaches wherein the first sensor has short-range wireless communication capabilities (Doaga teaches a golf course local area network, 41, Fig. 4, Para. 49).
As to Claim 4: Doaga teaches wherein the first sensor has long-range wireless communication capabilities (Internet capability, 42, Fig. 4, Para. 46).
As to Claim 5: Doaga teaches wherein the second sensor is configured to be positioned on the golf cart.
As to Claim 6: Doaga teaches wherein the second sensor is configured to be positioned at the tee box remote from the golf cart (tee box cameras, 60, 61, & 62, Para, 54, Fig. 6).
As to Claim 7: Doaga teaches wherein the second sensor includes at least one of a microphone, a camera, or an optical sensor (tee box cameras, 60, 61, & 62, Para, 54, Fig. 6).
As to Claim 9: Doaga teaches wherein the control system is configured to be at least one of located on the golf cart or positioned remote from the golf cart (base station controller 53, Fig. 5, Paras. 47 and 48, located at the club house).
As to Claim 10: Doaga teaches wherein the control system is configured to: detect that the location of the golf cart is proximate the tee box area for the tee box based on the first data acquired with the first sensor indicating that the golf cart is within a tee box geofence associated with the tee box area; and activate the second sensor in response to the golf cart entering the tee box geofence (Doaga’s golf cart with attached GPS will inherently be able to detect when the golf cart is in the tee area).
As to Claim 12: Doaga teaches wherein the control system is configured to: detect that the location of the golf cart is proximate a green area for a green of the hole based on the first data acquired with the first sensor; detect when the golf cart leaves the green area and record a green exit timestamp (Doaga’s golf cart with attached GPS will inherently be able to detect when the golf cart is in the green area, green 54, Paras. 33 and 64, Fig. 3); and determine a pace of play for the hole based on the respective tee shot timestamp and the green exit timestamp for the hole (timeliness, real-time competition, Para. 31).
As to Claim 13: Doaga teaches wherein the hole is a first hole of a round of golf played by the one or more occupants, and wherein the control system is configured to: detect that the location of the golf cart is proximate a green area for a green of another hole of the golf course based on the first data acquired with the first sensor; detect when the golf cart leaves the green area and record a green exit timestamp; determine that the other hole is a final hole played in the round; and determine a pace of play for the round based on the respective tee shot timestamp for the first hole and the green exit timestamp for the final hole (Doaga’s golf cart with attached GPS will inherently be able to detect when the golf cart is in the green area, green 54, Paras. 33 and 64, Fig. 3; timeliness, real-time competition, Para. 31).
As to Claim 15: Doaga teaches further comprising the one or more sensors (GPS 53, Fig. 5, Para. 47; cameras at tee boxes taught at Para. 54 and Claim 10).
As to Claim 16: Doaga teaches wherein the one or more sensors are positioned on the golf cart (a first sensor configured to be positioned on a golf cart and facilitate detecting a location thereof, GPS 53, Fig. 5, Para. 47).
As to Claim 17: Doaga teaches wherein the one or more sensors include at least one of a microphone, a position sensor, a camera, or an optical sensor (a first sensor configured to be positioned on a golf cart and facilitate detecting a location thereof, GPS 53, Fig. 5, Para. 47).
As to Claim 18: Doaga teaches wherein the one or more sensors include the microphone and the position sensor (a first sensor configured to be positioned on a golf cart and facilitate detecting a location thereof, GPS 53, Fig. 5, Para. 47).
As to Claim 19: Doaga teaches wherein the one or more processing circuits include at least one of (a) a first processing circuit configured to be positioned on the golf cart or (b) a second processing circuit configured to be positioned remote from the golf cart (base station controller 53, Fig. 5, Paras. 47 and 48, located at the club house).
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) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doaga in view of Rauchholz (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2013/0184095 A1).
As to Claim 2: Doaga as discussed above teaches first sensors being location (GPS) and a second sensor(s) being cameras. Doaga does not teach a second sensor(s) comprising cameras mounted on a golf cart. Rauchholz, however, teaches this limitation (video device or high speed cameras mounted on a golf cart, Paras. 123, Fig. 17B). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the golf cart-mounted cameras of Rauchholz to the golf cart of Doaga. Rauchholz is directed to a golf GPS play tracking system 1606 (Fig. 16A, Para. 118) which may be mounted on a golf cart. The two references are thus similar in filed of use and mode of operation. Doaga teaches at Para. 56 that the cameras are wireless—thus, they could be mounted onto a golf cart since they are not fixed or connected to a landline. The advantage of this modification would be to provide portable cameras on the golf cart in the event that tee location cameras are not already installed on the golf course.
As to Claim 11: Doaga in view of Rauchholz as discussed above would not need to activate the cameras when the golf cart is not located at the tee area. Such a modification would thus be trivial and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the advantage of not using a sensor when it is not needed.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doaga and Rauchholz in view of Imes (WIPO Publication WO 2021/248050 A1, application PCT/US2021/035974, published Dec. 9th, 2021).
As to Claims 8 and 20: The combination of Doaga and Rauchholz teaches a golf cart with integrated GPS (first sensor) and second sensors (tee area cameras) as discussed above regarding Claims 1, 2, and 14. This combination does not disclose microphone sensors that are activated or deactivated when the golf cart enters a geofence area in a tee zone (Paras. 115 and 127, the geofence detects when the golf cart is in a tee area; recording the golf swing is activated and deactivated when the golf cart enters and leaves the tee area, respectively, Para. 115; the microphone is incorporated with the video camera, Paras. 58 and 69; the microphone is used for recording the golf swings, Para. 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Imes’ camera-integrated microphone and geofencing to the combination of Doaga and Rauchholz. Imes is used to track golf carts’ progress over a golf cart using GPS (Paras. 76 and 108) and records the golf shot at the tee as described (Paras. 112 and 115). The advantage of this modification would be to provide microphones and cameras that are activate and deactivated to accurately record the golf swings at the tee when the golf card enters and leaves the tee area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M..
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/M.D.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DAVID L LEWIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715