DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 5 includes limitations directed towards "5. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the rangefinder can measure distance by radio wave, laser, radar, or infrared waves. The rangefinder 12 is locked into place within the rangefinder. " Each claim should be only one sentence long. Claim 5 includes two sentences. 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson (US 10894199 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches 1. An integrated golfing enhancement system, comprising: a golfing system device, See 1:41+, at least one rangefinder, See 2:15+, at least one speaker connected to the system device, and See 2:60+, a location tracking apparatus connected to the system device, See 2:55+, at least one system control apparatus connected to at least one component of the system device, See 4:57+, at least one internal charging port connected to at least one battery within the system device, wherein the internal charging port is configured to enable the battery to be charged, and See 7:19+, a display on the device configured to show at least one type of information from at least one system component, at least one external type of information, or both. See 7:58+.
Regarding claim 2, Thompson teaches 2. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the location tracking apparatus is a GPS system. See 2:55+.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches 3. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1,wherein the at least one system control apparatus is at least one power button. See 7:66+.
Regarding claim 6, Thompson teaches 6. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one speaker is configured to receive and transmit audio information from at least the rangefinder, the location tracking apparatus, and at least one computerized device. See 3:22+.
Regarding claim 7, Thompson teaches 7. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one speaker is further comprised of at least one volume control button, at least one speaker control apparatus, or both. See 8:34+.
Regarding claim 8, Thompson teaches 8. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the device is further comprised of at least one external charging port configured to charge at least one system component, at least one external component, or both. See 7:19+.
Regarding claim 10, Thompson teaches 10. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the display is a digital display, and is configured to show range information from the rangefinder, information from the location tracking apparatus, speaker volume, charge level of the golfing system device entertainment or radio channel information, or any combination of the above. See 7:58+.
Regarding claim 15, Thompson teaches 15. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the system is further comprised of at least one wireless source device configured to be wirelessly connected to the system device. See 2:50+; 2:62+.
Regarding claim 16, Thompson teaches 16. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 15, wherein the wireless source device is configured to transmit information from a rangefinder tracking app, information from a smartphone tracking app, other audio transmission, or a combination thereof. See 2:62+.
Regarding claim 17, Thompson teaches 17. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the battery is connected to at least one other component within or secured to the system device by at least one connecting wire, connected to at least one external charging port by at least one connecting wire, or both. See 6:16+; 9:5+ the utilization of wires to connect a charging port to a battery is well known in the art and commonsensical to utilize such in an electrical connection.
Regarding claim 18, Thompson teaches 18. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one other component is the rangefinder, display, and speaker. See 7:58+ which teaches a display which may be considered the at least one other component.
Regarding claim 19, Thompson teaches 19. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, further comprising a Wi-Fi generating modem-router device configured to provide a wireless internet signal capable of creating a local network around the system device. See 13:12+.
Regarding claim 20, Thompson teaches 20. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 19, wherein the battery is connected to the Wi-Fi generating modem-router device by at least one connecting wire and the system is configured so that the battery provides power to the Wi-Fi generating modem-router device. See 6:16+; 9:5+ the utilization of wires to connect a modem to a battery is well known in the art and commonsensical to utilize such in an electrical connection.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 10894199 B2) in view of Wayne (US 5159314 A).
Regarding claim 4, Wayne teaches 4. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the golfing system device is further comprised of a rangefinder container, and wherein the rangefinder container is configured such that the rangefinder can be seated within it, and wherein the rangefinder container is further comprised of apparatus for securing the rangefinder within the rangefinder container, and a release mechanism configured to release the rangefinder from the rangefinder container. See Fig. 2; (14)(21); 3:63+ wherein the assembly may include a range finder which may be removeable meeting the limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thompson with Wayne to provide a protective cover for the range finder shielding it from the elements.
Regarding claim 9, Wayne teaches 9. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, and wherein the device is configured to be capable of securing or releasing the location tracking apparatus. See Fig. 2; (14)(21); 3:63+ wherein the assembly may include a range finder which when the cowl is removed would allow the securing or releasing of the location tracking apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thompson with Wayne to provide a protective cover for the range finder shielding it from the elements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 10894199 B2) in view of Vermillion (US 20180231377 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Vermillion teaches 5. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the rangefinder can measure distance by radio wave, laser, radar, or infrared waves. The rangefinder 12 is locked into place within the rangefinder. See [0048+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thompson with Vermillion to provide means to measure the distance to a target to which the instrument is aimed. (See [0048+]).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 10894199 B2) in view of Larracey (WO 2024118800 A2).
Regarding claim 11, Larracey teaches 11. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the golfing system device is further comprised of at least one divot tool compartment configured to remove-ably accommodate at least one divot tool, and at least one ball marker compartment configured to remove-ably accommodate at least one ball marker. See [0005+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thompson with Larracey to provide means to detach a divot tool to a range finder (See [0005+]).
Regarding claim 12, Larracey teaches 12. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the system is further comprised of a securing apparatus configured to secure the system device to another object. See [0039+] which describes magnets for attached the device to a metal surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thompson with Larracey to allow the device to be detachably coupled to a metal surface. (See [0039+]).
Regarding claim 13, Larracey teaches 13. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 1, wherein the system is further comprised of securing apparatus configured to remove-ably secure the system device to another object. See [0039+] which describes magnets for attached the device to a metal surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thompson with Larracey to allow the device to be detachably coupled to a metal surface. (See [0039+]).
Regarding claim 14, Larracey teaches 14. An integrated golfing enhancement system according to claim 13, wherein the securing apparatus is comprised of at least one magnetic strip attached to one side of the system device, a set of magnets attached to one side of the system device, a mount in the general shape of a half circle configured to be attached to a golf cart, or a combination thereof. See [0039+] which describes magnets for attached the device to a metal surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thompson with Larracey to allow the device to be detachably coupled to a metal surface. (See [0039+]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nyhart US 20220390620 A1 - which teaches magnets on a rangefinder to allow it to be connected to other objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711