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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The independent claim 22, a shuttle mechanism. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Paragraph 0056 sets forth “A shuttle mechanism 500 may be used to move the tee box area 206, the fairway area 208, the rough area 210, and the sand area 212 relative to the screen 138, so that one of the tee-box 206, the fairway area 208, the rough area 210, and the sand area 212 is positioned in a desired position relative to the screen”. However, there is no considerable direction or guidance or disclosed examples as to the structural or functional details of this shuttle mechanism given the state of the prior art and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
(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 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (KR 101159676 B1).
Regarding claim 22, Kim et al disclose a method comprising: providing a golf simulator comprising a computing system (“golf simulation system”) with golf courses stored in memory, a projector, and a screen (“screen golf course”); providing a tee box area (120), fairway area (121), rough area (123), and a sand area (127) for hitting a golf ball that is proximal to the screen; providing a shuttle mechanism (130) coupled to the computing system to move the tee box area, the fairway area, the rough area, and the sand area relative to the screen (Translation: Page 3, Lines 4-9); projecting a simulation of a golf hole of the golf courses stored in memory on the screen with the computing system to provide a simulated golf hole that simulates the golf hole (Page 3, Lines 1-3); determining, based on one or more sensors, whether a simulated golf ball position after the golf ball is hit from a tee box is located on a fairway, in rough, or one fairway bunker of the golf hole (Page 3, Line 4-9); in response to determining the simulated golf ball position is located on a fairway, using the shuttle mechanism to position the fairway area relative to the screen (Page 3, Line 4-9); in response to determining the simulated golf ball position is located in rough, using the shuttle mechanism to position the rough area relative to the screen (Page 3, Line 4-9); and in response to determining the simulated golf ball position is located on the fairway bunker, using the shuttle mechanism to position the sand area relative to the screen (Page 3, Line 4-9).
Regarding claim 23, comprising providing the choice of selecting the fairway area, the rough area, or the sand area on a computing device and selecting the fairway area, the rough area, or the sand area based on the determined position of the golf ball (Page 3, Line 4-9).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20170074042 A) in view of Kim et al (KR 101159676 B11).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses a method comprising: providing a golf simulator comprising a computing system with golf courses stored in memory, a projector, and a screen (“golf play system”); projecting a simulation of a golf hole of the golf courses stored in memory on the screen with the computing system to provide a simulated golf hole that simulates the golf hole (Translation: Page 3, Paragraph 10); providing a tee box area (310), fairway area (350), rough area (380), and a sand area (320) for hitting a golf ball that is proximal to the screen; determining, based on one or more sensors, whether a simulated golf ball position after the golf ball is hit from a tee box is located on a fairway, in rough, or one fairway bunker of the golf hole (Page 4, Paragraph 2); instructing a user to place and hit a subsequent shot from the appropriate area based on the previous shot (Page 4, Paragraphs 2-4). However, Lee does not disclose providing a shuttle mechanism coupled to the computing system to move the tee box area, the fairway area, the rough area, and the sand area relative to the screen in response to determining the simulated golf ball position. As advanced above, Kim et al teach a similar golf simulator having a mat (110) and a computing/sensor system which determines a simulated golf ball position after a golf shot, wherein the mat comprises a shuttle mechanism (130) coupled to the computing system to move the tee box area, the fairway area, the rough area, and the sand area relative to the screen (Translation: Page 3, Lines 4-9) in response to determining the simulated golf ball position (Page 3, Line 4-9). The mat enables a user to practice a swing in a condition that is similar to the resting point of a ball hit within the screen golf simulation system (Page 2, Paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the field mat of Lee to have a shuttle system as taught by Kim et al to enable a user to practice a swing in a condition that is similar to the resting point of a ball hit within the screen golf simulation system without having to move to various points on the mat so that the user may be centered within the golf simulation system for all shots.
Regarding claim 23, comprising providing the choice of selecting the fairway area, the rough area, or the sand area on a computing device and selecting the fairway area, the rough area, or the sand area based on the determined position of the golf ball (Page 4, Paragraphs 2-4).
Regarding claim 24, comprising determining whether the golf ball position is located on a putting surface (Page 4, Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 25, comprising providing an instruction to illuminate a light on the putting surface at a location that corresponds with the determined position on the putting surface (Page 4, Paragraphs 11-13).
Regarding claim 26, comprising adjusting the putting surface so that the putting surface simulates a putting surface associated with the golf hole of the golf courses stored in memory (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 27, comprising setting in the computing system a threshold distance based on distance from a putting surface (Page 5, Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 28, comprising determining whether the golf ball position is less than or more than the threshold distance and if the determined position is less than the threshold distance, selecting one or more lights to indicate the golf ball position; and activating the one or more lights to illuminate a portion of a chipping area corresponding to the golf ball position (Page 4, Paragraph 7-13; Fig 7).
Regarding claim 29, comprising in response to determining the golf ball position is greater than the threshold distance, selecting one of the fairway area, rough area, or sand area that corresponds to the golf ball position (Page 5, Paragraphs 5-8).
Regarding claim 30, comprising distributing digital media content (score and handicap) of players using the simulator and the putting surface to a television or a computing device (500).
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication 2019/0255407 and Korean Patent Document 2012/0009933 teach similar golf simulator systems having separate areas (simulator and putting green) to hit and putt a golf ball.
Korean Patent Document 100912011 and 100918632 teach similar golf simulator systems having mats provisioned to shuttle surfaces simulating different lies (fairway, rough bunker).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 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, Melba N Bumgarner can be reached at (571) 272-4709. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711