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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 5/11/26 are hereby entered.
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, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 18-20 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, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 18-20 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 Claim 1, 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in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); and/or claim mathematical concepts as outlined at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), in terms of the Applicant claiming: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 determining whether a golf putt will be holed, the method comprising:
receiving […] user input data comprising a putting distance between a golf ball and a cup, a green speed or friction input, and a targeted distance past the cup;
[…];
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, the cup is located at the center of the circle, 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;
calculating the angle between the axis of rotation and the radius;
calculating a critical velocity for a golf ball;
calculating an approach angle at which the golf ball will approach a cup;
computing an overall velocity of the golf ball as the golf ball crosses an edge of the cup;
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.
In regard to Claim 13, 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 comprising]:
receiv[ing] user input data comprising a putting distance between a golf ball and a cup, a green speed or friction input, and a targeted distance past the cup
receiv[ing] green reading data […] wherein the green reading data comprises at least a critical velocity for a golf ball, an approach angle at which the golf ball will approach a cup, and an overall velocity of the golf ball as the golf ball crosses an edge of the cup;
calculat[ing] 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, the cup is located at the center of the circle, the golf ball is located on a position on the circumference of the circle;
orient[ing] the frame of reference so that an axis of rotation is a horizontal line going through the cup location;
calculate[ing] the angle between the axis of rotation and the radius;
wherein the overall velocity as the golf ball crosses the edge of the cup is compared to the critical velocity, and wherein if the overall velocity is less than the critical velocity then the golf ball is considered to be holed; and
us[ing] the green reading data to create user output data that is displayed to a user […].
In regard to Claim 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:
receiving […] user input data comprising a putting distance between a golf ball and a cup, a green speed or friction input, and a targeted distance past the cup;
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 radius;
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 and/or mathematical concepts.
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; a mobile device comprising a processor, a memory, a user interface, and at least one sensor selected from a 3-axis accelerometer, an inclinometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer, 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; a mobile device comprising a processor, a memory, a user interface, and at least one sensor selected from a 3-axis accelerometer, an inclinometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
68
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the limitations identified in the 101 rejection to comprise the alleged abstract idea do not include those directed to computing and/or sensing technologies, directed, in other words to “sensor acquisition and processor-based numerical iteration”.
Applicant argues that it has claimed a “practical application” and thereby claimed patent eligible subject matter under the Mayo test. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Mayo test is a legal test and “practical application” is not part of the Mayo test but is, instead, a burden placed on examiners by the Office when they are making a 101 rejection employing the Mayo test. Simply invoking “practical application” but without citing specific legal authority in support of Applicant’s argument that it has claimed patent eligible subject matter under the two-part Mayo test, therefore, does not provide a proper basis or rationale as to why the 101 rejection being made is allegedly deficient. Applicant specifically argues that its “claims apply the calculations to generate a concrete mobile-device training output rather than merely reporting an abstract calculation”. Again, without citing legal authority in support of why this necessarily renders patent eligible subject matter it is unclear how to respond to this argument. What is more, Applicant’s argument sounds in “utility” and not “subject matter eligibility”, however, these are separate burdens under 101. See MPEP 2014(III) and 2014 (IV).
Applicant further argues on page 7 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image3.png
186
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because Applicant claims sensors to collect data and a generic computing device executing Applicant’s abstract idea embodied as computer code to analyze that data and then produce an output based on that analysis and the CAFC has repeatedly held that the addition of such elements to an abstract idea does not claim “significantly more”. See, e.g., the CAFC’s decisions in Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights