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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/9/206 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant has amended the claims to include the same special technical feature as claim 1. This is found persuasive and the presently pending claims 1-4, 6, 15-17, and 20-31 are herein examined for patentability.
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.
Claims 6 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the golf course” the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purpose, as best understood in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as “a golf course”. Examiner suggest amending the phrase as such to overcome the antecedent basis issues.
Claims 23-25 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 21 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deen (WO 2008068499).
Regarding claim 1
Deen discloses:
A golf flagstick camera assembly (abstract; Fig 1-10), comprising:
a pole (golf flagstick 1, Fig. 1) having a central axis (longitudinal axis X, Fig. 1), a first end (left end opposite 3 in Fig. 1), and a second end opposite the first end along the central axis (right end at 3 in Fig. 1); and
a plurality of camera assemblies coupled to the pole (camera modules 7 and 9, Fig. 1), wherein the plurality of camera assemblies comprises:
a first camera assembly (camera module 9, Fig, 1) and a second camera assembly axially spaced from one another along the central axis(camera module 7, Fig. 1);
wherein the first camera assembly comprises a set of cameras (side cameras 29 and 31, Fig. 3) that each have a viewing axis that is positioned at an acute angle α to the central axis (see Fig. 3 cameras 29 and 31 almost substantially 90° to longitudinal axis X provided in second and third housings 33, 35 extending substantially parallel to longitudinal axis X and substantially perpendicular to the viewing axis of cameras 29 and 31 positioned therein);
wherein the second camera assembly comprises a set of cameras (hole cameras 21 and 23, Fig. 2) that each have a viewing axis that is positioned at an acute angle β to the central axis (see Fig. 2; The hole cameras 21, 23 are directed downwardly towards the bottom of the flagstick 1 so that, when the flagstick 1 is positioned in a golf hole, they can film the golf hole and some of the surrounding green, p.7, lines 25-27; hole cameras 21, 23 are diametrically opposed from each other and are both aligned substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis X of the flagstick 1, p.7, lines 23-24); and
wherein the angle α is greater than the angle β (see Fig. 3 showing cameras 29 and 31 almost substantially 90° to longitudinal axis X and Fig. 2 showing cameras 21 and 23 almost substantially 0° to longitudinal axis X)
Deen fails to explicitly teach:
a third camera assembly coupled to the pole and axially spaced between the first camera assembly and the first end;
wherein the third camera assembly comprises a set of cameras that each have a viewing axis that extends perpendicularly to the central axis.
The Court has held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d
669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), see MPEP §2144.04 VI B for further clarification).
In In re Harza the claims were directed to a water seal where the seal has a
“web” which comprises a plurality of “ribs” projecting outward from each side of the web.
The prior art disclosed a water stop which was in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although
the reference did not disclose the plurality of ribs, the Court found that the duplication of
parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In the instant case, Deen teaches two camera assemblies and suggests adding more cameras at different positions along the length of the flagstick(p. 4, line 31 – p. 5 line 7 and p. 10, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the golf flagstick camera assembly of Deen by adding more cameras, thereby duplicating the first camera assembly, comprising a third camera assembly coupled to the pole and axially spaced between the first camera assembly and the first end; wherein the third camera assembly comprises a set of cameras that each have a viewing axis that extends perpendicularly to the central axis in view of case law and which would yield predictable results. In this case,
the predictable result would be the ability to provide more and different viewing angles of the golfers and/or golf ball on and around the golf flagstick.
Regarding claim 2
Deen as modified above discloses:
The golf flagstick assembly of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses wherein the pole includes a stab connector at the second end (base 3, Fig, 1) that is configured to engage with a cup in a hole on a golf course (base member 3 has a ferrule (not shown) for locating the flagstick 1 in a cup provided in the green. A first marker is provided on the ferrule for alignment with a second marker provided on the cup. Aligning the first and second markers ensures that the flagstick 1 is in a preferred angular orientation, about the longitudinal axis X of the flagstick 1, relative to the green, p.7, lines 7-11), and wherein the second camera assembly is axially spaced between the first camera assembly and the second end along the central axis (see Fig. 1 showing camera module 7 axially spaced between camera module 9 and base 3 positioned at the second right side end along longitudinal axis X).
Regarding claim 3
Deen as modified above discloses:
The golf flagstick assembly of claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), and further discloses wherein the set of cameras of the first camera assembly are uniformly spaced about the central axis of the pole (side cameras 29, 31 are provided in second and third housings 33 and 35, rotatable manually about the longitudinal axis X of the flagstick 1 to allow the orientation of the first side camera 29 to be adjusted. The housings 33, 35 in the present embodiment may be rotated through less than or equal to 90°, p.8, lines 7-12), and wherein the set of cameras of the second camera assembly are uniformly spaced about the central axis of the pole (hole cameras 21 and 23 are diametrically opposed from each other and are both aligned substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis X of the flagstick 1, p.7, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 4
Deen as modified above discloses:
The golf flagstick assembly of claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), comprising an upper camera coupled to the first end of the pole (camera 119 coupled to the upper end of flagstick 101 via housing 117, Figs. 9 and 10), wherein the upper camera is configured to move omnidirectionally relative to the pole (an operator may rotate the camera assembly 105 about the longitudinal axis X of the flagstick 101 using the first motor 123. Moreover, the angle at which the camera 119 is inclined may be changed by pivoting the camera 119 about the axis Y using the second motor 129. Thus, the operator may rotate the camera 119 from side to side and up and down, p.12, line 30-p.13, line 1).
It would have been obvious to modify the golf flagstick assembly of claim 2 to include an upper camera that can move omnidirectionally, as taught Fig 9-10, for the purpose of providing means for tracking a golf ball as it moves in the air towards a golf hole(p. 4, line 31 – p. 5 line 7).
Regarding claim 21
Deen as modified above discloses:
The golf flagstick assembly of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the pole comprises a plurality of sections that are releasably coupled to one another(visually apparent in Fig 1-3), the plurality of sections including a first section that includes the first end(first section includes the first end shown at left side of Fig 3), a second section that includes the second end(second section includes second end 3 shown at right side of Fig 3), and a third section(25, 33,35; Fig 3) that is connected between the first section and the second section(Fig 3), and wherein the first camera assembly, the second camera assembly, and the third camera assembly are mounted to the third section(the third camera assembly as modified above, is between the first and second camera assemblies which would be mounted in the third section as is visually apparent in Fig 3).
Regarding claim 29
Deen teaches:
A method of capturing images of play on a golf course(p. 2, ln. 1-16), the method comprising:
(a) inserting the golf flagstick camera assembly of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), into a hole on a green of the golf course(p. 2, ln. 26-31); and
(b) capturing images with at least one of the first camera assembly, the second camera assembly, or the third camera assembly, after (a) (p. 2, ln. 26 to p. 3, ln. 9; p. 3, ln. 32 to p. 4, ln. 10; p. 5, ln. 2-7).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deen as modified above in view of Le Riche (SG 185164). The English translation of Le Riche to be referenced hereinafter.
Regarding claim 22
Deen as modified above discloses:
The golf flagstick assembly of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above),
Deen as modified above fail to teach:
a cup that is configured to be inserted within a hole on a golf course; and
a fourth camera assembly including a camera mounted on a shaft that is connected to the cup such that the fourth camera assembly is configured to protrude from the hole when the cup is installed in the hole;
wherein the fourth camera assembly is configured to be received in a cavity of the pole that extends from the second end when the pole is inserted into the hole to engage the cup.
Le Riche teaches:
An image capturing apparatus(Fig 1-2) located within a golf hole(22) having a cup(30) that is configured to be inserted within a hole(22) on a golf course; and
a fourth camera assembly(20) including a camera(44) mounted on a shaft(36) that is connected to the cup(via 32) such that the fourth camera assembly is configured to protrude from the hole when the cup is installed in the hole(Fig 1-2; “The image capturing apparatus 20 includes a retractable stem 36 which is coupled to the frame 32. The retractable stem 36 includes a pump 38 at a first end 40 of the retractable stem 36. The pump 38 is configured to cause the retractable stem 36 to extend when required and to cause the retractable stem 36 to retract when required. However, it should be appreciated that the pump 38 may be replaced with any hydraulic-based, gear-based, chain-based, pneumatic-based, spring-based or any of the aforementioned combination type of actuation mechanism which is configured to cause the retractable stem 36 to extend when required and to cause the retractable stem 36 to retract when required. A second end 42 of the retractable stem 36 includes an image capturing module 44. The image capturing module 44 includes a lens 46 for entry of light into an imaging sensor of the image capturing module 44 and a motion detector 48 for detecting a distance of a ball from the image capturing module 44. The image capturing apparatus 20 may be positioned in a manner relative to the golf-hole cup 30 such that the retractable stem 36 passes through a placement slot 50 in the golf-hole cup 30, the placement slot 50 being usable for a golf-hole flag. When the retractable stem 36 is extended to a height whereby the image capturing module 44 is at or just above the surface 28 of the golf green 26 as shown in Figure 1“).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Deen in view of Le Riche to add a fourth camera assembly located with the cup being retractable/extendable to a point just above the putting surface to be able to capture eye-level images of a golf ball on the golf green which helps spectators better understand slopes/contours of the green(Page 2, ln. 1-20).
Examiner notes the phrase “wherein the fourth camera assembly is configured to be received in a cavity of the pole that extends from the second end when the pole is inserted into the hole to engage the cup” is a functional limitation. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations “when the pole is inserted into the hole to engage the cup” are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since, Deen in view of Le Riche teaches structure capable of performing the function, Deen in view of Le Riche meet all requirements of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 23-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the golf flagstick assembly of claim 2, comprising an upper camera coupled to the first end of the pole, wherein the upper camera comprises a drone that is configured to separate from the first end of the pole and hover above the golf course.
Deen discloses an upper camera(119) coupled to the first end of the pole(Fig 9-10), but does not disclose wherein the upper camera comprises a drone that is configured to separate from the first end of the pole and hover above the golf course.
Claims 23-25 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependence on Claim 6.
Claims 30-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the method of claim 29, wherein the golf flagstick camera assembly further comprises a drone camera assembly coupled to the first end of the pole, the method further comprising:
(c) separating the drone camera assembly from the first end of the pole;
(d) hovering the drone camera assembly above the green; and
(e) capturing an image of play on the green with the drone camera assembly.
Deen discloses an upper camera(119) coupled to the first end of the pole(Fig 9-10), but does not disclose wherein the upper camera comprises a drone and the method further comprising separating the drone camera assembly from the first end of the pole; hovering the drone camera assembly above the green; and capturing an image of play on the green with the drone camera assembly.
Claim 31 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependence on Claim 30.
Claims 15-17, 20 and 26-28 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 15, Deen teaches the invention substantially as claimed as similarly addressed in the rejections of claims 1-2 above. However, Deen and the prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest a drone camera assembly coupled to the first end, wherein the drone camera assembly comprises a camera and a plurality of thrusters, and wherein the drone camera assembly is configured to separate from the first end of the pole and hover over the golf course.
Claims 16-17, 20 and 26-28 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependency on Claim 15.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20030004005 A1
Ainsworth, Clifford L. et al.
US 20090305803 A1
Reid; Martin
US 20030195052 A1
Cohen, Daniel E. et al.
US 20220111284 A1
WASAG; Michael et al.
US 20210260451 A1
BELTON; Jordan
US 20200306586 A1
Cheung; David
US 20200391094 A1
COLANGELO; Mark
US 20250312663 A1
Szymborski; Dale et al.
US 12544642 B2
Colangelo; Mark
US 5884913 A
Cohen; Daniel E.
US 20180280780 A1
NAKAO; Yuji et al.
US 20250339750 A1
ATSUMI; Kazuya
US 8398500 B1
Bouvier; Marc
US 20240017150 A1
Brigdale; Christopher Gerard
US 12330030 B2
Otterdahl; David et al.
US 11860517 B2
Aonuma; Joji
US 20200306586 A1
CHEUNG D
JP 2008167244 A
KUDO AKIRA et al.
WO 2023230732 A1
Ainsworth, Clifford L. et al.
The above references are cited for teaching image capturing devices and/or methods associated with golf, drones, and/or golf flagsticks having features similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights