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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being and/or mathematical concepts.
In regard to Claims 1, 13, and 20, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim mathematical concepts as outlined at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), in terms of the Applicant claiming:
A method of calculating a critical velocity of a golf ball to determine if a putt will be holed from a particular approach angle, comprising:
defining a frame of reference between a golf ball and a golf cup location on a golf putting green, wherein a line between the golf ball and the golf cup location defines a y-axis;
calculating a distance between the ball and the cup, wherein the distance between the ball and the cup defines a radius of a circle on the putting green, wherein the cup is located at the center of the circle and the golf ball is located on a position on the circumference of the circle;
orienting the frame of reference so that an axis of rotation is a horizontal line going through the cup location, wherein a high side of the cup is located at a twelve o’clock position;
calculating an angle between the axis of rotation and the ball on the circumference;
calculating a preferred target line of a putt, which is based at least in part by the calculated angle between the axis of rotation and the radius;
calculating an approach angle at which the golf ball will enter the cup, which is based at least in part by the preferred target line;
computing a critical velocity in roll and pitch dimensions, which is based at least in part on the approach angle;
computing the overall velocity of the golf ball as the ball crosses an edge of the cup, which is based at least in part on the critical velocity in the roll and pitch dimensions;
comparing the overall velocity as the ball crosses the edge of the cup to the critical velocity in both pitch and roll dimensions, wherein if the overall velocity is less than the critical velocity in both the pitch and roll dimensions, then the ball is considered to be holed.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being, a method of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, the rules of a game, and/or claim training/employing a machine learning algorithm in a particular environment.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium that is executable by a processor, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium that is executable by a processor, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1-2 and 12 in Applicant’s PGPUB and text regarding same.
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)(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 1-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PGPUB US 20230036888 A1 by Pennacchia et al (“Pennacchia”).
In regard to Claim 1, Pennacchia teaches a method of determining whether a golf putt will be holed, the method comprising:
calculating a critical velocity for a golf ball;
(see, e.g., p63);
calculating an approach angle at which the golf ball will approach a cup;
(see, e.g., F3, 64N and p51);
computing an overall velocity of the golf ball as the golf ball crosses an edge of the cup;
(see, e.g., p63);
comparing the overall velocity as the golf ball crosses the edge of the cup to the critical velocity, wherein if the overall velocity is less than the critical velocity then the golf ball is considered to be holed
(see, e.g., p63).
In regard to Claim 2, Pennacchia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p37-38.
In regard to Claim 3, Pennacchia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., F6, 104.
In regard to Claim 4-9, Pennacchia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p37-38.
In regard to Claim 12, Pennacchia teaches these limitations. See, e.g., p56-57.
In regard to Claim 13, see rejection of Claim 1 and, e.g., F7 regarding creating “output data”.
In regard to Claim 14, see rejection of Claim 2.
In regard to Claim 15, see rejection of Claim 3.
In regard to Claim 16, see rejection of Claim 12.
In regard to Claim 17, see rejection of Claim 7.
In regard to Claim 18, see rejection of Claim 8.
In regard to Claim 19, see rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715