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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golfzon (WO 2011/065804) in view of Robinson (US 2002/0049101).
Regarding claim 1, Golfzon teaches a golf simulation method including displaying a first image of a green of a virtual golf curse and displaying a second image of the green having a viewpoint different from the first viewpoint. Golfzon discloses displaying a plurality of green views including a basic view, rear view, left-side view, right-side view, opposite side view, and zoon view, and allowing a golfer to select among the displayed viewpoints to analyze the green before putting ( for example, pages 3-8; Figures 3-12). Golfzon therefore teaches displaying an image of a first view of a green; displaying an image of a second view of the green having a different viewpoint; and presenting multiple selectable views for putting analysis. Golfzon however, does not expressly disclose receiving a user selection associated with a displayed location on the green through the displayed views or does not expressly disclose receiving a selection of one point on the green through the displayed image. Robinson teaches an interactive putting analysis system having a processor, display, and user input device, including a touch-sensitive display through which user inputs are received (see paragraph 84). Robinson further teaches selectively displaying and adjusting representations of a golf green and putting indicia according to the golfer’s ball position and desired viewing angle and perspective (see paragraphs 88-91). Robinson also teaches determining putting paths using identified ball and pin location (see paragraphs 62-64). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification, the claimed “one point on the green” reasonably encompasses the hole cup, as the specification expressly identifies the hole cup as an example of the claimed point, as the specification expressly identifies the hole cup as an example of the claimed point on the green (see page 2 of applicant’s specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Golfzon’s virtual green display to incorporate Robinson’s interactive user-input functionality so that a golfer may designate a displayed location on the green while viewing the green from different viewpoints. Both references are directed to assisting golfers in visualizing and analyzing putting conditions. Incorporating Robinson’s interactive display techniques into Golfzon would have predictably improved user interaction and putting analysis while using known user-interface techniques for graphical displays.
Regarding claim 2, Golfzon teaches displaying multiple different viewpoints of the green including a rear view, left view, right view, opposite-side view, and zoom view (see pages 4-8; Figures 4-10). Robinson further teaches selectively adjusting the displayed representation to desired viewing angles and perspectives (see paragraph 89). It would have been obvious to provide the claimed selectable viewpoints to improve visualization of the putting surface from different perspectives for improved shot planning.
Regarding claim 3, Golfzon teaches displaying the green from different viewing positions while Robinson teaches displaying the representation from desired viewing angles and perspectives (see paragraph 89). Providing views at different virtual camera heights would have been an obvious implementation of Robinson’s adjustable viewing perspective because changing camera elevation is a well-known technique for improving visualization of terrain and surface contours.
Regarding claim 4, Golfzon teaches a golf simulation apparatus including a controller and display configured to display a virtual golf green from multiple viewpoints to assist a golfer in evaluating a putt (see Golfzon, pages 3-8 and Figures 3-10). Golfzon, however, does not expressly disclose displaying a grid pattern on the image of the green. Robinson teaches displaying graphical representations of the putting green including green contour information, and putting indicia representative of the surface characteristics of the green (see paragraphs 47-49 of Robinson). Robinson explains that the contour lines and putting indicia visually represents the shape, slope, and elevation of the green to assist a golfer in determining the proper putting path (see paragraphs 62-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Golfzon to display the contour and elevation information taught by Robinson as a grid pattern over the displayed virtual green because a grid is a well-known graphical technique for representing surface contour and elevation in computer-generated terrain display, Such a modification would have predictably improved the golfer’s ability to visualize changes in elevation and slope of the virtual green, thereby improving putting analysis without changing the principle of operation of Gofzon’s golf simulation system.
Regarding claim 5, Robinson teaches evaluating putting paths based upon ball position, pin position, slope, contour, speed, and grain (see paragraphs 62-64). It would have been obvious to calculate an evaluation result associated with a selected displayed location to provide useful putting guidance. It would have been obvious to determine whether a simulated trajectory intersects the selected displayed location and whether the trajectory changes direction near that location because such calculations are predictable mathematical analyses of the disclosed putting path.
Regarding claim 6, Robinson teaches determining the appropriate putting path based upon green characteristics including slope and contour (see paragraphs 62-64). It would have been obvious to determine whether a simulated trajectory intersects the selected displayed location and whether the trajectory changes direction near that location because such calculations are predictable mathematical analyses of the disclosed putting path.
Regarding claim 7, Golfzon teaches determining simulated golf-ball position. Robinson teaches determining spatial relationships between the golfer’s ball and the hole z9see paragraph 62). It would have been obvious to calculate the distance between the simulated ball and a selected displayed location using known coordinate calculations to provide distance information useful for putting analysis.
Regarding claim 8, Golfzon teaches sensing a struck golf ball and simulating corresponding movement on a displayed virtual course. Robinson teaches displaying the green from user-selected perspectives and analyzing putting paths (see paragraph 89). It would have been obvious to display the simulated movement while viewing the green toward the designated location to provide improved visual feedback during putting simulation.
Regarding claim 9, Golfzon teaches a golf simulation apparatus including a processor/controller, memory, display, storage, and user input (see pages 3-8 and Figures 3-12). Golfzon further teaches controlling he displayed images to assist a golf in evaluating a putt before simulating execution of the putt. Golfzon does not expressly disclose the controller receiving a selection of one point on the displayed green. Robinson teaches an interactive golf analysis system including a processor, memory, display and touch-sensitive input device configured to identify and utilize the golfer’s ball position and the hole position on the displayed green to determine a putting path (see paragraphs 62-64 of Robinson). Robinson further teaches receiving user input through a touch-sensitive display and selectively displaying graphical representations of the green from different viewing perspective (see paragraphs 84 and 88-89). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification, the claimed “one point on the green” reasonably encompasses the hole cup, as the specification expressly identifies the hole cup as an example of the claimed point, as the specification expressly identifies the hole cup as an example of the claimed point on the green (see page 2 of applicant’s specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Golfzon’s golf simulation apparatus to incorporate Robinson’s interactive user-input and putting-analysis techniques so that the controller receives the selected point (for example, the hole location) and generates the corresponding displayed views and putting analysis. Both references are directed to computerized golf visualization systems that assist golfers in evaluating putting conditions. The combination merely incorporates Robinson’s known interactive analysis techniques into Goflzon’s existing golf simulation apparatus to improve visualization and putting analysis, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 36 above.
Regarding claim 12, Golfzon teaches a golf simulation apparatus including a controller and display configured to display a virtual golf green from multiple viewpoints to assist a golfer in evaluating a putt (see Golfzon, pages 3-8 and Figures 3-10). Golfzon, however, does not expressly disclose displaying a grid pattern on the image of the green. Robinson teaches displaying graphical representations of the putting green including green contour information, and putting indicia representative of the surface characteristics of the green (see paragraphs 47-49 of Robinson). Robinson explains that the contour lines and putting indicia visually represents the shape, slope, and elevation of the green to assist a golfer in determining the proper putting path (see paragraphs 62-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Golfzon to display the contour and elevation information taught by Robinson as a grid pattern over the displayed virtual green because a grid is a well-known graphical technique for representing surface contour and elevation in computer-generated terrain display, Such a modification would have predictably improved the golfer’s ability to visualize changes in elevation and slope of the virtual green, thereby improving putting analysis without changing the principle of operation of Golfzon’s golf simulation system.
Regarding claim 13, Golfzon teaches a golf simulation apparatus including a controller configured to display a virtual golf green and simulate golf play from multiple viewpoints (see Golfzon, pages 3-8 and Figures 3-12). Robinson teaches determini8ng putting information based on the golfer’s ball position, hole position, green contour, slope, speed , and grain to assist a golfer in evaluating a putt (see paragraphs 62-64 of Robinson). It would have been obvious to modify Golfzon’s controller to calculate an evaluation associ8ated with a selected displayed location using Robinson’s putting-analysis techniques to provide useful information regarding putting conditions and improve the golfer’s decision making. Such a modification merely applies Robinson’s known putting-analysis techniques to Golfzon’s virtual golf simulation and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Golfzon teaches simulating movement of a golf ball on a displayed virtual golf course following a putt. Robinson teaches determining the path along which a golf ball should travel based on green characteristics including contour, slope, speed, and grain (see paragraphs 62-64). It would have been obvious to configure Golfzon’s controller to evaluate the simulated trajectory relative to a designated displayed location because Robinson teaches analyzing the expected putting path over the represented green. Performing trajectory calculations relative to displayed locations constitutes a predictable mathematical implementation of Robinson’s disclosed putting-path analysis whin Golfzon’s virtual simulation environment.
Regarding claim 15, Golfzon teaches determining the simulated position of a golf ball on a virtual golf course. Robinson teaches identifying the golfer’s ball position, the hole position, and the corresponding putting path between those locations (see paragraph 62). It would have been obvious to calculate the distance between the simulated golf ball and a designated displayed location because determining distances between identified locations is a routine geometric calculation used in computerized golf simulation systems to provide distance information useful for planning and evaluating a putt.
Regarding claim 16, Golfzon teaches displaying multiple selectable views of a virtual golf green, including basic, rear, left, right, opposite side, and zoom views (see pages 3-8 of Golfzon). Robinson teaches selectively displaying and adjusting reorientations of the green according to a desired viewing angle and perspective (see paragraphs 88-91). It would have been obvious to modify Golfzon to display the represented green from the golfer’s ball position toward a designated displayed location using Robinson’s teachings regarding adjustable viewing perspectives, thereby improving visualization of the intended putting path and green conditions.
Regarding claim 17, Golfzon teaches detecting or determining movement of a golf ball and simulating corresponding movement on the displayed virtual golf course. Robinson teaches displaying graphical putting information and putting-path analysis corresponding to the represented green (see paragraphs 62-64 and 88-91). It would have been obvious to display the simulated movement of the golf ball while presenting Robinson’s adjusted green representation to provide enhanced visual feedback regarding the path of the si8mulated putt and the effect of green conditions, thereby improving the golfer’s understanding of the simulated shot.
Regarding claim 18, Golfzon teaches a golf simulation apparatus including a controller, display, storage, and user interface configured to display multiple view of virtual golf green and simulate golf play. Robinson teaches an interactive user interface including a touch-sensitive display through which user inputs are received and graphical representations of the green are selectively displayed and adjusted (see paragraphs 84 and 88-91). It would have been obvious to incorporate Robinson’s interactive user-input and display -control techniques into Golfzon’s simulation system so that the controller receives user input associated with displayed locations on the virtual green and displays corresponding graphical informaiton from different viewpoints. Such a modification represents the predictable use of known graphical user-interface techniques to improve user interaction and putting analysis without changing the principle of operation of Golfzon’s simulation system.
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Melba N Bumgarner can be reached at (571) 272-4709. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights