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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite, as exemplified by independent Claim 10, limitations that are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
A control method of the electronic device, the control method comprising:
acquiring a current position by a position acquisition sensor;
reading map information of a golf course corresponding to the current position from a memory;
determining a shot mode by using the current position and the map information; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
detecting motion data for a swing of a user; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
determining, based on the shot mode and the motion data, whether the swing is an effective swing; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
when the swing is the effective swing, displaying a stroke count information display screen on a display unit. -certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations, as underlined above, are found to recite a series of steps for managing a score of a game of golf which is analogous to managing social activity (including rules and/or instructions) that the courts have indicated is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity. Moreover, the rules and/or instructions are found to recite an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion that is capable of being performed in the human mind and/or may be accomplished with the aid of pen and paper (e.g., a scorecard that tracks golf stroke count). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 10, are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “acquiring a current position by a position acquisition sensor;” “reading map information of a golf course corresponding to the current position from a memory;” and “display screen on a display unit” recite the abstract idea that invokes a highly-generalized computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, mere data gathering step, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1 are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements such as: “electronic device”, “a position acquisition sensor”, “an inertial sensor”, “a memory” and “a display unit” when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements recite highly-generalized computer components that have been recited to perform steps and/or instructions to be invoked as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For instance, Savarese et al. (US 2014/0329613 A1) discloses a conventional electronic device (e.g., smart phone) comprising a position acquisition sensor (e.g., GPS), an inertial sensor (e.g., accelerometer in general purpose smart phone), a memory and display unit (see Savarese, Fig. 1, 0012) are known and conventional components used for tracking a golf stroke known to one of ordinary skill in the golfing arts. It follows that whether when viewed individually and/or as a collection of components these elements do not amount to significantly more and/or provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 10, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more under Step 2B.
Regarding independent Claim 1, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter but recites an embodiment of the invention directed to an electronic device. The analysis of independent Claim 10 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the claims are not found to change the analysis above because as noted the additional elements are known and conventional uses to one of ordinary skill in the golfing arts to track and keep score for a game of golf. For at least these reasons, the electronic device of claim 1 is not found to be directed to significantly more for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20, the limitations have been reviewed and were found to recite at least one of: i) a further limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas, ii) invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, iii) insignificant extra solution activity; and/or iv) provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). It follows that these limitations are not found to integrate the claim into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite “A program stored in a recording medium to perform the control method” and “A recording medium in which a program to perform the control method”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “recording medium” can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, claims 19-20 encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). Therefore, “a program stored in a recording medium” add/or a recording medium in which a program is stored” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter as it may encompass software and/or a signal per se. “If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful." In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It follows that claims 19-20 are found to be directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 10-20 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. Claims 10-20 recites the limitation "A control method of the electronic device” in independent Claim 10 which renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the electronic device” in the claim. Claims 11-20 are rendered indefinite for substantially the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Syed et al. (US 2022/0161121 A1).
Regarding claim 1, an electronic device comprising (see Syed, Fig. 2, 5, 0053-0054, 0099-0102)):
a display unit (see Syed, 0102));
a memory for storing map information of golf courses (see Syed,0036-0040, 0113);
a position acquisition sensor for acquiring a current position of the electronic device (see Syed, 0043, wherein the user data includes GPS data; 0056, 0060, 0106, 0130);
an inertial sensor for detecting motion data of a swing of a user of the electronic device (see Syed, 0041, 0043-0044, 0054, 0067-0069); and
a control unit for determining a shot mode based on the current position and the map information (see Syed, 0066-0069, 0073, wherein the performance information includes location for a golf shot, putting, scrambling, saves, fairway hits), determining whether the swing is an effective swing based on the shot mode and the motion data (see Syed, 0042-0046, 0051, 0060-0062, 0073, whether a golf shot occurs which is an effective swing or a practice swing, and, displaying a stroke count information display screen on the display unit when the swing is the effective swing (see Syed, 0060-0062, 0102, 0106).
Regarding claim 2, Syed discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein: the control unit determines the shot mode to a full swing mode when the current position is on a tee box or fairway (see Syed, 0039, 0043-0045, 0047, 0058, 0073, wherein the system determines shot performance data including tee shot metric (e.g., club off of tee, birdies with club off of tee), approach shot metrics and putting metrics), determines the shot mode to an approach mode when the current position is within a preset range from a green (see Syed, 0043-0045, 0047, wherein an approach mode comprises club on measurements of using club upon approach, GIR), and determines the shot mode to a putting mode when the current position is on the green (see Syed, 0043-0045, 0047, 0058, wherein using the location at which the golf ball makes impact with a club the system generates putting stats, scrambling stats, and fairways that indicate different shot modes in the game of golf).
Regarding claim 3, Syed discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein:
the motion data includes, for the swing, acceleration information and angular velocity information, and the acceleration information includes a first acceleration in an x-axis direction, a second acceleration in a y-axis direction, a third acceleration in a z-axis direction (see Syed, 0067, wherein the multi-axis accelerometer 302 provides acceleration information associated with the motion of the club in the swing of an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis direction), and
an acceleration magnitude, and the angular velocity information includes a first angular velocity during a rotation about the x-axis as a center axis, a second angular velocity during a rotation about the y-axis as a center axis, a third angular velocity during a rotation about the z-axis as a center axis, and an angular velocity magnitude, and the control unit calculates a plurality of swing singularities for the swing based on the shot mode and the motion data to determine whether the swing is the effective swing by a period between the plurality of swing singularities (see Syed, 0051, 0054, 0067-0070, wherein the measured acceleration information to determine an effective swing (e.g. shot or practice shot) in a specified period of time which is analogous to “a period between the plurality of swing singularities”).
Regarding claim 10, Syed discloses a control method of the electronic device, the control method comprising:
acquiring a current position by a position acquisition sensor (see Syed,0036-0040, 0113);
reading map information of a golf course corresponding to the current position from a memory (see Syed, 0043, 0056, 0060, 0106, 0130);
determining a shot mode by using the current position and the map information (see Syed, 0066-0069, 0073);
detecting motion data for a swing of a user (see Syed, 0043 0056, 0060, 0106, 0130);
determining, based on the shot mode and the motion data, whether the swing is an effective swing (see Syed, 0041, 0043-0044, 0054, 0067-0069); when the swing is the effective swing (see Syed, 0042-0046, 0051, 0060-0062, 0073), displaying a stroke count information display screen on a display unit (see Syed, 0060-0062, 0102, 0106).
Regarding claim 11, Syed discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the control unit determines the shot mode to a full swing mode when the current position is on a tee box or fairway (see Syed, 0039, 0043-0045, 0047, 0058, 0073, wherein the system determines shot performance data including tee shot metric (e.g., club off of tee, birdies with club off of tee), approach shot metrics and putting metrics), determines the shot mode to an approach mode when the current position is within a preset range from a green (see Syed, 0043-0045, 0047, wherein an approach mode comprises club on measurements of using club upon approach, GIR), and determines the shot mode to a putting mode when the current position is on the green (see Syed, 0043-0045, 0047, 0058, wherein using the location at which the golf ball makes impact with a club the system generates putting stats, scrambling stats, and fairways that indicate different shot modes in the game of golf).
Regarding claim 13, Syed discloses the control method of claim 12, wherein:
the motion data includes, for the swing, acceleration information and angular velocity information, and the acceleration information includes a first acceleration in an x-axis direction, a second acceleration in a y-axis direction, a third acceleration in a z-axis direction (see Syed, 0067, wherein the multi-axis accelerometer 302 provides acceleration information associated with the motion of the club in the swing of an x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis direction), and
an acceleration magnitude, and the angular velocity information includes a first angular velocity during a rotation about the x-axis as a center axis, a second angular velocity during a rotation about the y-axis as a center axis, a third angular velocity during a rotation about the z-axis as a center axis, and an angular velocity magnitude, and the control unit calculates a plurality of swing singularities for the swing based on the shot mode and the motion data to determine whether the swing is the effective swing by a period between the plurality of swing singularities (see Syed, 0051, 0054, 0067-0070, wherein the measured acceleration information to determine an effective swing (e.g. shot or practice shot) in a specified period of time which is analogous to “a period between the plurality of swing singularities”).
Regarding claim 19-20, Syed discloses the control method of claims 10-12. Syed further disclose a program stored in a recording medium to perform the control method (see Syed, 0048, 0072). Moreover, Syed discloses a recording medium in which a program to perform the control method is stored (see Syed, 0048, 0072).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed as applied to claims 3 and 12 above in view of Kim et al. (WO2015/0839990 A1) as evidenced by ‘English Translation’ by Clarivate Analytics of WO2015/0839990 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Syed discloses the electronic device of claim 3 and the control method of claim 12. Although, Syed discloses determining different points to identify and discriminate between different phases of a swing it is silent with respect to wherein: the plurality of swing singularities includes an address point, a backswing top point, and an impact point, the control unit determines a point at which the electronic device has a minimum velocity before the backswing occurs to the address point, determines a point at which the electronic device has a minimum velocity after the backswing occurs to the backswing top point, and determines a point at which, in the full swing mode and the approach mode, the second angular velocity has a minimum value to the impact point, and determines, in the putting mode, a point at which a slope of the third acceleration is maximum as the impact point.
Kim teaches in an analogous golf and control method wherein: the plurality of swing singularities includes an address point, a backswing top point, and an impact point, the control unit determines a point at which the electronic device has a minimum velocity before the backswing occurs to the address point, determines a point at which the electronic device has a minimum velocity after the backswing occurs to the backswing top point, and determines a point at which, in the full swing mode and the approach mode, the second angular velocity has a minimum value to the impact point, and determines, in the putting mode, a point at which a slope of the third acceleration is maximum as the impact point (see Kim, Fig. 1-7, pg 6-10). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim’s swing analysis to yield the predictable result of determining the type of swing/shot performed by the user (see Kim, Fig. 1-2, pg. 8-10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein: the plurality of swing singularities includes an address point, a backswing top point, and an impact point, the control unit determines a point at which the electronic device has a minimum velocity before the backswing occurs to the address point, determines a point at which the electronic device has a minimum velocity after the backswing occurs to the backswing top point, and determines a point at which, in the full swing mode and the approach mode, the second angular velocity has a minimum value to the impact point, and determines, in the putting mode, a point at which a slope of the third acceleration is maximum as the impact point.
Regarding claims 19-20, the combination of Syed and Kim disclose the control method of claim 13. The combination further teach a program stored in a recording medium to perform the control method (see Syed, 0048, 0072). Moreover, the combination teach a recording medium in which a program to perform the control method is stored (see Syed, 0048, 0072).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 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, 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights