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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the hardware limitations and the abstract idea amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees and notes that the hardware recited is generic in composition and arrangement, and the abstract idea is merely functionally recited. These are hallmarks of a broad swath of protection sought for non-technical coverage. This type of drafting effort does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain patent ineligible.
Applicant argues that the addition of original course data and the placement of the advertisement on the virtual course overcomes prior art Hobler. Examiner disagrees and notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the newly amended claims is still met by Hobler as noted below. The nature of the course and location of the advertising are anticipated by Hobler because the claim amendments are broadly drafter and do not exclude the courses and advertisement that are generated by Hobler. Applicant’s arguments do not construe the metes and bounds of the new claim language and without clearly argued and supported metes and bounds, Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. The claims will be analyzed with respect to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test at MPEP§2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 1 (see MPEP§2106.03)
The claims recite one of the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 1 (see MPEP§2106.04(a-c))
The claims recite abstract ideas in the following categories;
Methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); (MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)II) (hereinafter “MOHA”).
The abstract ideas have been noted below.
The claims describe a MOHA regarding the creation of a virtual product, the compensation of the creators of that virtual product and for the placement and payment of advertisements in the virtual product. These are the fundamental elements of human exchange and organization.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP§2106.04(d))
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are generic computer hardware; insignificant extra solution activity such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data; and the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. These additional elements individually and in combination provide for limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements (1) add “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) and (2) generally link “the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I).
These additional elements individually and in combination are not limitations that provide for “improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) apply or use the “judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) implement the “judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) effect “a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c);” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I) or apply or use “the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).” (MPEP§2106.04(d)I). As such the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Subject Matter Eligibility – Step 2B (see MPEP§2106.05)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional generic computer hardware and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP§2106.05). The claimed additional elements with citations indicating their well-understood, routine and conventional nature are provided below.
Examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of the virtual golf simulator elements, e.g. display, launch monitor, etc. that have been recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. 2011/0250939 by Hobler.
Regarding claim 1, Hobler discloses a virtual golf system comprising a course creation device and a management device, wherein: the course creation device includes a first memory for storing a first program, and a first processor connected to the first memory (para. 23, 24 and 46 – see the hardware effectuation), and the first processor executes the first program to create original course data representing a virtual golf course on the basis of design information designated by a first user (para. 97-100 – see course creation); and the management device includes a second memory for storing a second program, and a second processor connected to the second memory (para. 23, 24 and 46 – see the hardware effectuation via cloud/server), the second processor executes the second program to manage a course data group including the original course data (para. 44-47, 97-100 – see the cloud computing and the LinksPlay system), the management device adds, to the original course data, advertisement data representing an advertisement which is to be placed at a location on the virtual golf course or on an item on the virtual golf course (para. 76-78 – see the advertisement location bidding), and the management device provides, to a simulation device, course data selected from the course data group by a second user who differs from the first user (para. 97-100 – see the courses made public to be played by other players), the simulation device projecting, on a screen, a virtual golf course represented by the selected course data and reproducing, on the screen (fig. 1; para. 41-44 – see the virtual golf screen and system), a trajectory of a golf ball corresponding to a shot hit by the second user (fig. 1; para. 41-44 – see the virtual golf screen, system and calculated trajectory).
Regarding claim 2, Hobler discloses the virtual golf system according to claim 1, wherein: the design information includes information pertaining to at least one selected from the group consisting of a type of a hole, a shape and a property of the hole, a shape and a property of a hazard, a shape and a property of an obstacle, and a shape and a property of a message board on which a character string is displayed (para. 97-100 – see course design).
Regarding claim 3, Hobler discloses the virtual golf system according to claim 1, wherein: when the original course data including the advertisement data has been selected by the second user, the management device calculates a reward amount commensurate with an advertisement fee as a reward amount to be paid to the first user, a third user to whom ownership of the original course data has been transferred from the first user, or a fourth user to whom a right to use the original course data has been granted by the first user (para. 71-84 – see user monetization system for courses).
Regarding claim 4, Hobler discloses the virtual golf system according to claim 1, wherein: the design information includes information indicative of a location where the advertisement is to be placed (para. 75-79 – see advertisement location pricing).
Regarding claim 5, Hobler discloses the virtual golf system according to claim 1, wherein: when the original course data has been selected by the second user, the management device awards a point to the first user (para. 71-84 – see user monetization system for courses).
Regarding claim 6, Hobler discloses this claim as noted above regarding claims 1, 2 and 4.
Regarding claim 7, Hobler discloses the management device according to claim 6, wherein: the management device adds the advertisement data to the course data on the basis of advertisement placement information designated by another user who differs from the user (para. 75-79, 97-100 – see course design and advertisement placing).
Regarding claim 8, Hobler discloses the management device according to claim 7, wherein: the advertisement placement information includes information indicative of a location where an advertisement is to be placed on the virtual golf course or an item where an advertisement is to be placed on the virtual golf course (para. 75-79, 97-100 – see course design and advertisement placing).
Regarding claim 9, Hobler discloses the management device according to claim 7, wherein: when the course data including the advertisement data has been selected by the user, the management device calculates a reward amount commensurate with an advertisement fee as a reward amount to be paid to the another user (para. 75-79, 97-100 – see course design and advertisement payments).
Regarding claim 10, Hobler discloses the virtual golf system according to claim 1, wherein the advertisement is placed at the location on the virtual golf course, on the item on the virtual golf course, or both, the location includes a green, a fairway, a tree, a side of a bunker, and a rough, and the item includes an airship, a balloon, a pin, and a flag (para. 76-78 – see the advertisement location bidding and location on the course).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 PETER J IANNUZZI whose telephone number is (571)272-5793. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/PETER J IANNUZZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights