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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 8, 16, 20-21, 25, 28, 30-33, and 39-43 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims, 4, 8, 20, and 21, line 2 of each claim, “comprises of” should be changed to comprises.
Regarding claim 5, lines 4-5, “attachable to connectable” should be changed to attachable or connectable.
Regarding claim 16, line 2, “wherein golf system” should be changed to wherein the golf system.
Regarding claim 25, line 3, “golfers” should be changed to golfer’s.
Regarding claims 28, 30, 31, 39, 40, and 41, where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(i).
Regarding claim 28, line 1, “comprising of” should be changed to comprising.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a system (for measuring the distance on the golf course) in claims 1, 3-5, and 20, a statistics collection system in claims 1, 4-6, 20, 31, and 39-41, a golf swing detector in claim 16, a golf distance measuring device in claim 28, a golf statistical performance tracking device in claim 28, an automatic electronic golf statistical performance tracking device in claim 30, a positioning system in claims 31 and 39-41, a communications module in claim 33, and a device (for measuring the distance on the golf course) in claims 39-42..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-26, 30-33, 39-40, and 42-43 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 1 recites the limitation "the distance" in in line2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the golf course" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, line 1, “the system” is indefinite. The claims recite a golf system, a system for measuring the distance on the golf course, and a statistics collection system. It is unclear which system is being referenced.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether the club identification tag is required since the claim from which it depends does not require a club identification tag (rather a radio frequency identification tag can be present), but claim 11 further defines the alternative.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether the piece of golf equipment is required since the claim from which it depends does not require golf equipment (rather a golf club can be present), but claim 11 further defines the alternative.
Regarding claim 14, line 3, it is unclear if “a club identification tag” is the same as the one or more club identification tags recited in claim 10. If so, it is unclear whether the club identification tag is required since the claim from which it depends does not require a club identification tag (rather a radio frequency identification tag can be present), but claim 14 further defines the alternative.
Regarding claim 18, line 1, “the system” is indefinite. The claims recite a golf system, a system for measuring the distance on the golf course, and a statistics collection system. It is unclear which system is being referenced.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the device logo" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the device lens window" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the golf measuring device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, line 1, “the system” is indefinite. The claims recite a golf system, a system for measuring the distance on the golf course, and a statistics collection system. It is unclear which system is being referenced.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the antenna" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if “the antenna” is the same as the plurality of antenna circuits or systems recited in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the read range" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "device" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "club identification tag" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the contact, accelerometer, swing and sounds sensors" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 26, line 2, “the system” is indefinite. The claims recite a golf system, a system for measuring the distance on the golf course, and a statistics collection system. It is unclear which system is being referenced.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is indefinite for lacking a transitional phrase. It is unclear what claim language is intended to be the preamble and what claim language is intended to be the body of the claim. The claim is further indefinite for lacking any structure. The claim is drawn to an apparatus; however, no structure is claimed.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the golf course" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 31, line 3, “further comprising” is indefinite. No previous structure was claimed; therefore, it is unclear how the device can “further comprise” additional structure. It is suggested to change “further comprising” to comprising to remedy this rejection.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the golf course" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the second device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the golf course" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunter (US 2017/0043228 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Hunter discloses an automatic electronic golf statistical performance tracking device [100, 200] that captures the event of a golf shot fully or partially automatically to deliver at least one of: personal golf score, personal golf statistical data, personal golf metric data, and personal golf insight data for use on the golf course during playing the game of golf or a round of golf (paragraphs 0052-0053, 0110-0130, 0159, and Figures 1-4 and 13a-13k).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bastawros (US 2014/0277627 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Bastawros discloses an automatic electronic golf statistical performance tracking device [120] that captures the event of a golf shot fully or partially automatically to deliver at least one of: personal golf score [510], personal golf statistical data [550], personal golf metric data, and personal golf insight data [530] for use on the golf course during playing the game of golf or a round of golf (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0031-0037, 0050-0065, and Figures 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Katzer et al. (US 2019/0072908 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hunter discloses a golf system comprising: a statistics collection system [105, 106, 107, 111 or 205, 206, 207, 211] for automatically or partially automatically gathering statistical information on performance of an action involving a golfer [700] swinging a golf club [304, 701] or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object [702] (paragraphs 0052-0053, 0110-0138, 0159, and Figures 1-7 and 13a-13k). Hunter does not disclose a system for measuring the distance on the golf course. Katzer, however, teaches a similar golf system comprising: a system [100] for measuring the distance on the golf course [1306] (paragraphs 0047-0049, 0094-0097, 0100, 0103, and Figures 13A-13B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a system for measuring the distance on the golf course into the wrist-wearable golf system of Hunter because Katzer teaches that this configuration can display relevant information about the hole of the golf course, can determine a distance of a shot taken by the user, and can display the distance from the tee box to various layup points from the green to assist the user in hitting a layup shot (paragraphs 0096, 0100, and 0103).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, comprising at least one sensor [105, 106, 107 or 205, 206, 207], the at least one sensor [105, 106, 107 or 205, 206, 207] comprising one or more of: at least one object contact sensor [106 or 206]; a swing movement sensor [105 or 205]; a motion sensor [105 or 205]; and/or an acceleration sensor [205 or 206]; wherein the at least one sensor [105, 106, 107 or 205, 206, 207] is configured to at least partially detect a golf swing and/or detect the event of a golf club [304, 701] striking a golf ball [702] (paragraphs 0111-0112, 0115, 0124, 0130, and Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the system [100 of Katzer] for measuring the distance on the golf course comprises a laser rangefinder or other rangefinder (see paragraphs 0094-0095 and 0103 of Katzer; wherein the smart watch acts as a rangefinder by providing distance information).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the statistics collection system [105, 106, 107, 111 or 205, 206, 207, 211] automatically gathers at least one of: golf statistical performance data or information; insights; and metrics on a performance of a golfer [700] performing a golf swing action in which that golfer [700] uses a golf club [304, 701] or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object [702] (paragraph 0052, 0111-0112, 0115-0116, 0130, and Figures 1-2 and 13f).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system comprises or is comprised of a golf measurement device [300, 400] that is at least one of: wearable (see wearable devices [301, 400]), attachable and portable (see wearable devices [301, 400]) and that can be used for a golfer [700] during playing the game of golf or a round of golf (paragraphs 0126-0134 and Figures 4-5 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, adapted to automatically or partially detect when a golf club [304, 701] or piece of golf equipment is at least one of: being gripped by a golfer [700], used by a golfer [700] and a golfer [700] is swinging (paragraphs 0114-0115, 0125, 0128, and Figures 4 and 13a).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 9, wherein the golf system comprises or is configured to communicate with one or more radio frequency identification tags [250, 305] or club identification tags [250, 305] applied, affixed, affixable, inserted or embedded to a piece of golf club [304, 701] equipment to automatically or partially detect when the golf club [304, 701] or the piece of golf equipment is at least one of: being gripped by the golfer [700], used by the golfer [700] and the golfer [700] is swinging (paragraphs 0114-0115, 0125-0131, and Figures 4, 13a, and 13f).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 10, wherein all or part of the club identification tag [250, 305] is one of: inserted, installed, embedded or connected to the piece of golf equipment [304] (paragraph 0127 and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system is configured to identify at least one of: the event of a golf swing, the event of a strike with a golf ball object [702], the event of a hit with a golf ball object [702], the event of a connection with a golf ball object [702], and the type of golf equipment [304] used (paragraphs 0114-0115, 0125, 0128, and Figures 4, 13a, and 13f).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 10, comprising a radio frequency reader and transmitter [302, 502] with automatically selected range settings that are selectable by selecting or varying one or more matching circuits or matching system [510a-e] based on input range feedback between system and tag [250, 305] (paragraphs 0015, 0127-0128, 0135-0139, 0145-0146, 0149, and Figures 4, 6-8, and 10).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 10, wherein the golf system comprises a tag reader antenna circuit [504] that automatically or partially automatically reads the information on a club identification tag [250, 305] to identify a golf club [304, 701] or golf equipment type (paragraphs 0125, 0127-0128, 0135-0136, and Figures 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 14, wherein the tag reader antenna circuit [504] comprises or is configured to communicate with a tag reader antenna [302, 502, 502a] embedded behind, inside or within a lens [402] or LCD window of, the golf system (paragraphs 0125, 0127-0128, 0135-0138, and Figures 4-6; wherein the antenna is embedded within the strap [401, 501] which is located behind the screen [402]).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 9, wherein golf system comprises a golf swing detector [105, 205] configured to monitor at least one golf swing event for predefined motion ranges in one or both of: a predefined order and predefined time window (paragraphs 0028-0032, 0111-0112, 0115, 0124, 0151, and Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, configured to collect one or more of: locational data, time data, golf equipment type, swing data derived from at least one swing sensor [105, 205], swing data derived from at least one motion sensor [105, 205], swing data derived from at least one contact sensor [106, 206], golf shot count, golf score, golf statistical performance data and information (paragraphs 0052-0053, 0111-0112, 0114-0116, 01290156, and Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises at least one of: a radio frequency antenna [302, 502, 502a], a tag reader antenna [302, 502, 502a] and a club identification antenna [302, 502, 502a] located behind or embedded within the device logo on the device lens window [402] (paragraphs 0125, 0127-0128, 0135-0138, and Figures 4-7; wherein the antenna is embedded within the strap [401, 501] which is located behind the screen [402]). Regarding the recitation of a device logo on the device lens window, such indicia only serves to convey a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. There is no new feature of physical structure and no new relation of printed matter to the physical structure. Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01. The indicia has no physical tie to the substrate. Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Any differences residing in meaning and information conveyed by printed matter are not considered patentable subject matter. No patentable weight is given to the printed matter unless there is an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. See MPEP 2111.05. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate, the examiner does not find there to be an unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate as the printed matter is merely conveying meaning to a human reader in an obvious and routine matter. As such, no patentable weight is given to the claimed printed matter.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises of a plurality of antenna circuits or systems [512a-d] and one or more adjustable matching circuit or system [510a-e], wherein the golf system is configured to adjust at least one operating parameter of, or compensation for, the antenna [302, 502, 502a] by selecting or varying one or more of the matching circuits or systems [510a-e] based on feedback from the read range between device and club identification tag [250, 305] (paragraphs 0015, 0127-0128, 0135-0142, 0145-0146, 0149, and Figures 4, 6-8, and 10).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system is configured to identify and differentiate between a practise golf swing and real golf swing that hits or strikes or makes contact with the golf ball [702] using a piece of golf equipment [304, 701], wherein contact with the golf ball object [702] occurs in the real golf swing, the identification and differentiation using one or more of: the contact, motion, accelerometer, swing and sounds sensors [105, 106, 107 or 205, 206, 207] to determine whether or not contact with the golf ball object [702] occurred (paragraphs 0111-0112, 0115-0119, 0124, 0151-0154, and Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system is configured to use a cluster of at least one or each of: swing information; location, position, motion, and acceleration, in conjunction with the presence of a club identification tag [250, 305] to determine the event of a golf swing or golf shot (paragraphs 0041, 0111-0112, 0115-0116, 0119, 0124-0128, 0151-0153, and Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system is configured to communicate with one or more portable electronic device (paragraph 0112: “smartphones and tablets” and paragraph 0116: “smartphone, tablet, or laptop”) to share golf measurement data or information and golf statistical performance tracking data or information specific to the game of golf or sport or sport of golf (paragraphs 0052, 0112, and 0116).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system is configured to automatically record, analyse, document and store (see memory [109, 209]) golf statistical performance data and/or information in relation to a golfers golf game or measurable performance (paragraphs 0052, 0112, 0117, 0123, and Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Hunter discloses the golf system according to claim 22, wherein the system is configured to determine an event of a real golf swing or real golf shot utilising a set of predefined characteristics in relation to at least one or each of: the position, acceleration, force, and vibration throughout a golf swing and the event of contact with the golf ball object [702] (paragraphs 0111-0112, 0115-0119, 0124, 0151-0154, and Figures 1-2).
Claims 1, 3-8, 16-17, 20, 24-25, 28, 31-33, and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastawros in view of Nyhart et al. (US 2020/0200530 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bastawros discloses a golf system comprising: a statistics collection system [120] for automatically or partially automatically gathering statistical information on performance of an action involving a golfer swinging a golf club or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0031-0037, 0050-0065, and Figures 1-6). Bastawros does not disclose a system for measuring the distance on the golf course. Nyhart, however, teaches a similar golf system comprising: a system [100] for measuring the distance on the golf course (paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0042, and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Bastawros’ golf system to include a rangefinder which is magnetically attached to the golf cart because Nyhart teaches that this configuration provides highly accurate golf course distance measurements via an easily stowable, readily accessible, highly visible rangefinder (paragraphs 0003 and 0012).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the system [100 of Nyhart] for measuring the distance on the golf course comprises a laser rangefinder or other rangefinder (paragraph 0042 and Figure 1C of Nyhart).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises of a magnetic force [101 of Nyhart] to connect one or both of: the system [100 of Nyhart] for measuring the distance on the golf course and the statistics collection system to a piece of equipment [200] (also see [90] of Nyhart) (paragraph 0042 and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C of Nyhart).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 4, wherein: the system [100 of Nyhart] for measuring the distance on the golf course is provided in a first device [102 of Nyhart]; the statistics collection system [120] is provided in a second device [200]; and the first device [102 of Nyhart] and second device [200] are affixable or mountable or attachable to connectable together using a magnet [101 of Nyhart] or magnetic force (paragraphs 0023, 0028, 0050 and Figures 1-2; also see paragraphs 0042-0043 and Figures 1B, 3, 5A, and 5C of Nyhart; wherein once Nyhart is combined with Bastawros for the reasons provided above, the laser rangefinder would be attached to the golf cart, which houses the statistics collection system, via the magnets).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the statistics collection system [120] automatically gathers at least one of: golf statistical performance data or information; insights; and metrics [550] on a performance of a golfer performing a golf swing action in which that golfer uses a golf club or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object (paragraphs 0027, 0032-0033, 0035, 0037, 0040, 0042, 0048, 0057, 0062-0063, and Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system comprises or is comprised of a golf measurement device [112] that is at least one of: wearable, attachable and portable and that can be used for a golfer during playing the game of golf or a round of golf (paragraphs 0024-0025 and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system comprises of a magnet [101 of Nyhart] of magnetic force that is affixable or mountable or attachable to at least one of: a golf trolley, golf kart [200] (also see [90] of Nyhart) and golf buggy (paragraph 0042 and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C of Nyhart).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 9, wherein golf system comprises a golf swing detector [122] configured to monitor at least one golf swing event for predefined motion ranges in one or both of: a predefined order and predefined time window (paragraph 0037: “[w]hen a player signals the golf cart with his or her headset 112 as described above, at least one of the video cameras 122 records the player's swing and another camera 122 records the landing of the ball”) (paragraphs 0026-0027, 0035, 0037, and Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, configured to collect one or more of: locational data [560], time data, golf equipment type, swing data derived from at least one swing sensor [122], swing data derived from at least one motion sensor [122], swing data derived from at least one contact sensor, golf shot count, golf score [510], golf statistical performance data and information [550] (paragraphs 0027, 0032-0033, 0035, 0037, 0040, 0042, 0048, 0057, 0060, 0062-0063, and Figures 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf measuring device comprises of a magnetic force [101 of Nyhart] that connects the system for measuring the distance on the golf course [100 of Nyhart] and the statistics collection system [120] (paragraph 0042 and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C of Nyhart; wherein once Nyhart is combined with Bastawros for the reasons provided above, the laser rangefinder would be attached to the golf cart, which houses the statistics collection system, via the magnets).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system is configured to communicate with one or more portable electronic device to share golf measurement data or information and golf statistical performance tracking data or information specific to the game of golf or sport or sport of golf (paragraphs 0008, 0010, 0028-0029, and 0049).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Bastawros discloses the golf system according to claim 1, wherein the golf system is configured to automatically record, analyse, document and store golf statistical performance data and/or information in relation to a golfers golf game or measurable performance (paragraphs 0027, 0032-0033, 0035, 0037, 0040, 0042, 0048, 0057, 0062-0063, 0067, and Figure 5).
Regarding claim 28, Bastawros discloses a device comprising of a golf statistical performance tracking device [120] (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0031-0037, 0050-0057, and Figures 1-6). Bastawros does not disclose a portable device comprising a golf distance measuring device. Nyhart, however, teaches a portable device comprising of a golf distance measuring device [100] and a golf cart [90] connected or affixed or attachable using magnets [101] or magnetic force (paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0042, and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Bastawros’ golf cart, which houses the golf statistical performance tracking device, to include a portable rangefinder which is magnetically attached to the golf cart because Nyhart teaches that this configuration provides highly accurate golf course distance measurements via an easily stowable, readily accessible, highly visible rangefinder (paragraphs 0003 and 0012).
Regarding claim 31, Bastawros discloses a second device [200], the second device [200] comprising at least one or both of: a positioning system [114] for determining the location of the second device [200] on the golf course; and a statistics collection system [120] for automatically or partially automatically gathering statistical information on performance of an action involving a golfer swinging a golf club or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0031-0037, 0050-0065, and Figures 1-6). Bastawros does not disclose a device for measuring the distance on the golf course comprising a magnetic coupler for coupling to a second device. Nyhart, however, teaches a device [100] for measuring the distance on the golf course, the device [100] configured to determine a distance to features on a golf course, the device [100] further comprising a magnetic coupler [101] for coupling to a second device [90] (paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0042, and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Bastawros’ golf cart to include a portable rangefinder which is magnetically coupled to the golf cart because Nyhart teaches that this configuration provides highly accurate golf course distance measurements via an easily stowable, readily accessible, highly visible rangefinder (paragraphs 0003 and 0012).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Bastawros discloses the device of claim 31, wherein the device [100 of Nyhart] is or comprises a laser rangefinder or other rangefinder (paragraph 0042 and Figure 1C of Nyhart).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Bastawros discloses the device of claim 31 further comprising a communications module [150] for communicating (see [340]) with the second device [200], the communications module configured to at least one of: communicate the determined distance to features on a golf course to the second device and receive at least one of: the location on the golf course and the statistical information (see [340]) on performance of an action from the second device [200] (paragraphs 0023, 0032, 0034, 0053, and Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 39, Bastawros discloses a system comprising a golf device [200] that comprises at least one or both of: a positioning system [114] for determining the location of the second device [200] on the golf course; and a statistics collection system [120] for automatically or partially automatically gathering statistical information on performance of an action involving a golfer swinging a golf club or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0031-0037, 0050-0065, and Figures 1-6). Bastawros does not disclose a device for measuring the distance on the golf course. Nyhart, however, teaches a similar system comprising a device [100] for measuring the distance on the golf course and a golf device [90], wherein the device [100] for measuring the distance on the golf course and the golf device [90] are releasably couplable together via magnetic force [101] (paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0042, and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Bastawros’ golf cart to include a portable rangefinder which is magnetically couplable to the golf cart because Nyhart teaches that this configuration provides highly accurate golf course distance measurements via an easily stowable, readily accessible, highly visible rangefinder (paragraphs 0003 and 0012).
Regarding claim 40, Bastawros discloses a method of producing a device, the method comprising providing a second device [200], the second device [200] comprising at least one or both of: a positioning system [114] for determining the location of the second device [200] on the golf course; and a statistics collection system [120] for automatically or partially automatically gathering statistical information on performance of an action involving a golfer swinging a golf club or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0031-0037, 0050-0065, and Figures 1-6). Bastawros does not disclose a device for measuring the distance on the golf course. Nyhart, however, teaches a similar method of producing a device [100] for measuring the distance on the golf course, the device [100] configured to determine a distance to features on a golf course, the method comprising providing the device [100] with a magnetic coupler [101] for coupling to a second device [90] (paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0042, and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to magnetically couple a rangefinder to Bastawros’ golf cart because Nyhart teaches that this method provides highly accurate golf course distance measurements via an easily stowable, readily accessible, highly visible rangefinder (paragraphs 0003 and 0012).
Regarding claim 41, Bastawros discloses a method of producing a golf device [200], the method comprising providing the golf device [200] with at least one or both of: a positioning system [114] for determining the location of the golf device [200] on a golf course and a statistics collection system [120] for automatically or partially automatically gathering statistical information on performance of an action involving a golfer swinging a golf club or golf equipment to hit or strike or make contact with a golf ball object (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0031-0037, 0050-0065, and Figures 1-6). Bastawros does not disclose a magnetic coupler configured to couple with a device for measuring a distance on the golf course. Nyhart, however, teaches a similar method of producing a golf device [90], the method comprising providing the golf device [90] with a magnetic coupler [101], wherein the magnetic coupler [101] is configured to couple with a device [100] for measuring a distance on the golf course (paragraphs 0003, 0012, 0042, and Figures 1A-1C, 5A, and 5C). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to magnetically couple a rangefinder to Bastawros’ golf cart because Nyhart teaches that this method provides highly accurate golf course distance measurements via an easily stowable, readily accessible, highly visible rangefinder (paragraphs 0003 and 0012).
Regarding claim 42, the modified Bastawros discloses a method of using the system of claim 39, comprising magnetically [101 of Nyhart] attaching the device [100 of Nyhart] for measuring the distance on the golf course to the golf device [200] and subsequently detaching the golf device [200] from the device [100 of Nyhart] for measuring the distance on the golf course, or vice-versa (see paragraph 0042 and Figures 1B-1C, 5A, and 5C of Nyhart).
Regarding claim 43, the modified Bastawros discloses the method of claim 42, comprising using the golf device [200] to one or both of: communicate with one or more radio frequency identification tags or club identification tags applied, affixed, affixable, inserted or embedded to a piece of golf club equipment to automatically or partially detect one or more of: when the golf club or the piece of golf equipment is being gripped by the golfer or used by the golfer and the golfer is swinging; and detect a golf swing (via cameras [122]) and/or detect the event of a golf club striking a golf ball (paragraphs 0026-0027, 0035, 0037, and Figures 1-3).
Additional Subject Matter
Claim 19 is not rejected under art; however, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Hong (US 12,121,786 B2), DeCastro et al. (US 11,474,240 B2), Yin (US 11,051,595 B1), Ahem (US 2010/0099509 A1), and Rudow et al. (US 5,689,431) which all disclose similar golf systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571)272-4463. 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights