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 abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims are directed to the concept of predicting golfer pace of play as affected by pin and tee placement on the golf course. It has long been known in golf course management that more difficult tee and /or pin locations on a golf course will likely slow down the pace of play for certain (e.g., novice) golfers, and this must be taken into consideration depending on what skill levels of golfers are expected on a given day or in a given tournament. This sort of golf course management has traditionally been done by human beings through organized thought and interaction. The claims are the equivalent of “certain methods of organizing human activity” as well as “mental processes”.
The claims functionally recite desired end results (“acquire…”, “estimate…”) without any technical description of how any particular computers are programmed to accomplish these results. No nonobvious hardware, system architecture, programming operations or combination thereof are claimed — only lists of ideas. And these ideas are squarely about golf course pace of play prediction capable of being done by human beings without the use of computers.
Step 1: In this step of the Alice analysis, it is determined that all of the pending claims fall into statutory categories. The claims meet step 1 as follows:
Claims 1-20 are directed to a machine (system).
Step 2A, Prong 1: In this step of the Alice analysis, judicial exception(s) that fall into enumerated abstract idea groupings enumerated are identified and quoted.
The pending claims involve a user operating a “user portal” of some generic “user computing device” to input certain data such as a “desired pace of place” and receive an estimation of pace of play of a golf course for play by golfers or suggested pin and tee locations for configuring the golf course. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “certain methods of organizing human activity” include “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “following rules or instructions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) notes that “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” A user specifying constraints to a portal and receiving instructions on how to configure a golf course is covered activity within this grouping.
A similar example of practicing “certain activity between a person and a computer” found in case law includes, in Location Based Servs., LLC v. Niantic, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1045–49 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 742 F. App’x 506 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “analyzing information about a location, which is data analysis and an abstract idea.” The instant-claimed analysis of golf tee and pin position location data for estimating pace of play of a golf round is exactly the sort of data analysis found to be directed to abstract ideas, including when implemented by generic computers.
The claims are also directed to the enumerated abstract idea grouping of “mental processes” because the claimed steps can be performed mentally by human beings through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Managing pace of play in daily rounds of golf and golf tournaments has long been a fundamental task of human beings including golf course pros, managers, starters, tournament operators, rules committees and officials. Pace of play has always been a critical element of golf course management, and planning whether to move tees and/or pins accordingly was always capable of being done by human beings without the use of computers. There are no technical details provided in the claims regarding hardware or software implementation of data gathering and data analysis, or of providing a suggested golf course setup for a desired pace of play that reveals in any way how a human being would not be capable of performing these tasks. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) explains that, “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” The pending claims are drafted using results-focused functional language that merely lists intended outcomes (acquire tee positions, acquire pin positions, estimate a pace of play) obtainable from operating a generic computer to perform tasks that are otherwise fully capable of being done mentally.
The steps directed to abstract ideas in each of independent claims 1, 14 and 17 are:
L1: estimate a current pace of play for a current setup of the golf course based on the one or more current or planned tee positions and the one or more current or planned pin positions; (in claims 1, 14, 17)
L2: generate a new setup for the golf course to substantially provide the pace of play by providing at least one of a) a new tee position or b) a new pin position to achieve the desired pace of play (claim 14)
L3: the new setup is based on at least one of a) a play history of golfers… b) past setups of the golf course, c) past environmental conditions or d) current or predicted environmental conditions during play (claim 14)
With respect to L1 and L2, considering impacts of tee and hole placement on pace of play when setting up a golf course for the next day of play has traditionally been carried out by a golf course manager, tournament committee or rule official(s). There is nothing claimed that reveals how “processor circuits” having unclaimed technical specifications or programming operations are accomplishing anything a human being isn’t capable of doing through organized thought, judgment, and/or opinion when estimating pace of play. Also note that in Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014), management of all aspects of a bingo game via a computer was found to be abstract.
With respect to L3, this step recites data analysis of location-based data, which was held to be abstract in in Location Based Servs., LLC v. Niantic, Inc., 295 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1045–49 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 742 F. App’x 506 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Additionally, "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind was held to be directed to abstract mental processes in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Step 2A, Prong 2: In this step, any additional elements beyond the identified abstract ideas are identified and evaluated for any integration into a practical application. In particular, any claimed technological improvement is considered.
Additional elements recited in the claims include:
one or more processing circuits; (claims 1, 14 and 17)
These additional elements are recited in the claims at a high level of generality and merely outline a generic technological field in which to apply the abstract mental teaching steps of the claims through routine and conventional use of generic hardware. Applicant’s disclosure, which the claims are read in light of, does not attribute any novel or unobvious hardware specifications, configuration, or usage to the claimed processing circuits, which serves as evidence that the computing devices of the instant claims are equivalent to prior art computing devices merely being used for their inherent purposes. “[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance … amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.’” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Additionally, claims directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Also, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect (in the pending claims, any software application and any computing device, as there are no details recited of how the functional end results of the claims are accomplished), amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception (mental processes and organized human activity). See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result).
acquire one or more current or planned tee positions. acquire one or more current planned pin positions; (claims 1, 14 and 17)
“The receiving of input and storing steps represent the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea […] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Dependent claim 2 recites generic data gathering by a GPS device, wherein there are no technical specifications stated for the GPS device or any programming instructions recited to accomplish the functionally-described end result of tee and pin position location acquisition. Dependent claims 3, 5 recites a “user portal accessible via a user computing device”. As noted prior, the use of a computer or machinery for its ordinary task (in this case, a GPS gathering location data of real-world locations and some user portal receiving input data) does not integrate the abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application or inventive concept.
Dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10-11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 recite additional details describing a) types of data gathered by the generic computers (a desired pace of play, a fastest pace of play, golfer play history, past or current environmental conditions, past golf course setups) and b) types of data analysis performed (generating new tee or pin location data based on analyzed data).
With respect to a), specific contents of data (“data per se”), in other words information that does not have a physical or tangible form, is cited in MPEP 2106.03(I) as an example of claims that are not directed to any statutory category, and as such, cannot impart eligibility to abstract ideas being applied by generic computers.
With respect to b), what types of data analysis is performed (determining golf-related distances and a desired target to aim at based on existing gathered situational data) “is just analyzing information about a location, which is data analysis and an abstract idea” as established in Location Based Servs., LLC v. Niantic, Inc.
The preceding additional elements, considered alone and in the context of the claims, do not integrate the abstract game-rule logic into a practical application that improves computer functionality or another technology. They:
Invoke generic computers, memories, and conventional networked environments. [0023] states that “memory … may be any volatile or non-volatile or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. And in [0051] the instant specification admits the hardware and data processing of the invention may be provided by “any conventional processor”. [0052] describes that “The embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented using existing computer processors.” “[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance … amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020). And “simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea […] does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Affinity Labs v. DirectTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Do not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer (e.g., no improved rendering pipeline, no reduced latency synchronization protocol, no novel memory management, no graphics or physics engine enhancement).
Do not effect a transformation of an article.
Are drafted as applying the abstract idea through result-oriented language (in claim 1, “acquire … tee positions,” “acquire … pin positions,” “estimate a current pace of play”, “provide a user portal [that] facilitates a user entering the desired pace of play”.) without any details as to how software or hardware accomplishes these results.
With regard to interpreting result-oriented claim language when performing a 35 USC §101 analysis, see Beteiro LLC v. DraftKings Inc., (Fed. Cir 2024) when "the claims are drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves these results. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." See also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL Inc. (896 F.3d 1335) wherein the court found that claims to a computer software "attention manager" that displays content on unused portions of a screen were result-oriented and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they did not recite a specific technological method for achieving the claimed result; Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22825 (Fed. Cir. 2024): The court held that claims must not only describe desired outcomes but also include a specific process or machinery for achieving that result; In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022): The court reaffirmed that claims simply reciting a desired result without specifying how to achieve it are directed to an abstract idea and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims at issue were directed to analyzing data from two databases. In the Step Two of the Alice test, the court determined that there was no inventive concept because the additional elements merely involved generic and routine data gathering and analysis steps that could have been performed with or without a computer.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) explains that, “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"”.
The pending claims do not include any technical description of mechanisms for accomplishing the claimed results. Instead, the claims use some unspecified computer and unspecified programming to conduct generic, result-oriented steps such as to “acquire” data and “estimate” a result based on the data, through some unspecified analysis steps, for performing abstract certain methods of organizing human activity and that are the equivalent of human mental work. The claims seek to cover any system and any method (such as any programming instructions) for applying the abstract ideas. As such the claims are found to be directed to ineligible subject matter.
Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing. "Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information---to provide a 'humanly comprehensible' amount of information useful for users ... ---by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We have repeatedly held claims "directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner" to be abstract. In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
“A patent-eligible technical improvement requires solving an actual problem.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. Whereas McRO v. Bandai Namco Games Am. involved a specified, automated, rules-based process for facial animation that was different from manual approaches performed by animators and that solved, in contrast, the instant claims merely involve generic steps. And whereas Data Engine Techs provided a solution to an actual problem existing in prior art spreadsheets, the instant claims do not solve any such problem existing in computers themselves or in the relevant computing art.
The pending claims do not focus on any asserted improvements to computers themselves or computer technology, and none of the examples provided by the courts, see MPEP 2106.05(a), for improving computer functionality are found in the instant claims. The instant claims merely apply a long-known method of human beings estimating how tee or pin placement might affect pace of play for certain golfers is neither improving the computer nor any technical field of endeavor.
Step 2A Prong 2 concludes in a determination that the additional elements do not amount to a practical application of the claimed abstract ideas.
Step 2B: In this step of the Alice analysis, it is assessed whether additional elements amount to significantly more than abstract ideas. Any well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity is also discussed along with evidentiary considerations.
Absent integration into a practical application, the claims lack “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additional elements that are generic computer implementation and conventional components are:
“processing circuits”, “a user portal”, “a user computing device”.
The specification characterizes these computing components as being conventional computing hardware and software performing ordinary functions (spec. [0023], [0051]-[0052]), supporting a finding that the implementation is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC). See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (WURC must be supported); here, the instant specification itself indicates conventionality.
A thorough analysis of each and every limitation of each and every claim, both individually and as part of an ordered combination shows that the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Conclusion:
Claims 1-20 are found to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although step 1 is satisfied (the claims recite manufacture/process/machine), in Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea—certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. And as found in Step 2A Prong 2, the abstract ideas are not integrated into a practical application; only ideas of outcomes and generic computer implementation are claimed. There are no technical details in the claims that reveal how any of the claimed outcomes are to be accomplished. And performing Step 2B, there is nothing “significantly more” found beyond WURC elements as evidenced by the specification.
Possible remedies:
To improve subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it is recommended to anchor the claims to concrete, non-generic technical mechanisms (such as particular software processes or nonobvious system architectures) in a way that there is evidence in the claims of certain improvements to computer or network operations or to another technology. In the field of the instant invention (golf course management using computers), an improvement would have to be found to an inherently technical problem existing in computers and would have to reveal how the computer(s) themselves are improved as a direct result of the claimed invention. The details of the improvement to computers cannot be found in the wording of the abstract ideas (details of ideas capable of being performed by human beings) themselves. Genetic Techs v Merial, an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature" itself. A subjective improvement in a user’s experience (by providing certain results of data analysis accomplished by unspecified hardware or software) is not an improvement to computers themselves or to computer technology and does not solve any stated problem that is inherently technical in nature.The court ruled in International Business Machines Corporation v. Zillow Group, Inc., (CAFC, 17 October, 2022), that "improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims" patent-eligible. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Examples might include to:
Tie abstract steps to a specific, non-generic technological implementation that improves computer functionality or another technology (e.g., reduces network latency by X, improves memory utilization via Y, improves image fidelity through Z), with technical mechanisms claimed.
Provide evidence of improvements to computers or network operations in the claims by claiming certain network nonobvious server-side architecture that is also claimed as solving problems existing in the art, or claiming a certain improvement in rendering such as a GPU-accelerated improvement that provides measurable improvements to game functionality.
Add claim elements showing a particular machine or a transformation of an article, beyond mere data manipulation or display functions.
Replace result-oriented terms (“acquire … tee positions”, “estimate a current pace of play”) with concrete steps and parameters tied to the technical mechanism (e.g., explicit algorithmic operations, message formats, timing constraints, thresholds).
Limit scope to a specific technological field and architecture (e.g., “a distributed game server cluster employing [named protocol] with defined message cadence and buffer management”) and claim the architecture itself, avoiding broad “apply it on a computer” formulations.
Provide specification support demonstrating the asserted improvements are not well-understood, routine and conventional:
Implementation details: algorithms with stepwise operations, data structures with constraints, hardware configurations, protocol diagrams.
Performance evidence: benchmarks, latency/throughput graphs, memory usage comparisons versus baselines.
Engineering rationale: why existing approaches fail and how your mechanism achieves measurable gains.
Recite in the claims a technical solution to a technological problem (e.g., secure hardware-backed attestations, novel protocol flows, improved cryptographic operations, sensor fusion pipelines).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715