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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,442. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘442 encompasses claim 1 of the instant application wherein claim 1 of ‘442 can be used to reject claim 1 of the instant application as can be seen below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,036,442
1. A method for dynamic prediction of flight ballistics, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, launch characteristics of an object and atmospheric or environmental metrics at a first location;
iteratively, for a plurality of time increments:
selecting, by the computing system, a set of coefficients from an array of sets of coefficients based on the retrieved atmospheric or environmental metrics, and
calculating, by the computing system, a position and velocity of the object at a time increment,
wherein during a first iteration, calculating the position and velocity of the object is further based on the object launch characteristics, and
wherein during each subsequent iteration, calculating the position and velocity of the object is based on the previous calculated position and velocity of the object, and selecting the set of coefficients from the array of sets of coefficients is further based on the previous selected set of coefficients; and providing, by the computing system, the calculated position of the object corresponding to a threshold height value.
1. A method for dynamic prediction of golf ball ballistics, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of a device, a user profile comprising one or more golf ball launch characteristics;
retrieving, by the one or more processors, atmospheric or environmental metrics at a first location;
iteratively, for a plurality of time increments:
selecting, by the one or more processors, a set of coefficients from an array of sets of coefficients based on the retrieved atmospheric or environmental metrics, and
calculating, by the one or more processors, a position and velocity of a golf ball at a time increment,
wherein during a first iteration, calculating the position and velocity of the golf ball is further based on the one or more golf ball launch characteristics, and
wherein during each subsequent iteration, calculating the position and velocity of the golf ball is based on the previous calculated position and velocity of the golf ball, and selecting the set of coefficients from the array of sets of coefficients is further based on the previous selected set of coefficients; and
displaying, by the one or more processors via a display of the device, the calculated position of the golf ball corresponding to a threshold height value.
The only difference between the two is that the instant application discusses an object, whereas the ‘442 focuses on a golf ball. However, the two are not obviously patentably distinct as a golf ball is an object. Additionally, ‘442 states displaying instead of providing, however displaying is a method of providing and thus again ‘442 is obviously not patentably distinct from the instant application. Claims 2-20 of the instant application are also obviously not patentably distinct from claims 2-20 of the ‘442 as the two sets of claims mirror each other with the only difference being ‘442 states a golf ball, and the instant application states an object.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter
3. Step 2A:
4. Under Step 2A, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of a series of mental processes.
5. The claim language recites a method of determining the trajectory of a ball based on atmospheric conditions, launch conditions, and a set of coefficients that are dependent on said atmospheric or environment conditions . However, the system represents the abstract idea of a mental process as stated in Electric Power Grid and MPEP 2106. In Electric Power Grid, the Court held that “a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Using claim 1 as exemplary, the collecting information step is provided by the following limitations “receiving, by a computing system, launch characteristics of an object and atmospheric or environmental metrics at a first location.” The analysis step is encompassed calculating the position of the objects under said received conditions. The last step of outputting a result is provided by “providing, by the computing system, the calculated position of the object corresponding to a threshold height value.” Claims 2-4 are related to the collecting step as said claims define what information is to be collected. Claims 5-10 are related to the mathematical formulations (also an abstract idea) used in the analyzing step. Thus, the claims represent a mental process under the guidance of Electric Power Group and the MPEP.
The second prong of Step 2A, ask whether the claims recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, no such practical application exists. There is no improvement made to computer technology since the claims are only directed towards providing a computer based determination for the trajectory of a ball. Additionally, there is no practical application as there is no particular machine that is used to implement the claim language, but instead and as will be discussed below only generic computers are used to perform the invention. Also, there is no transformation of the machine used in the application into a different state or thing. Lastly, the claims do not attempt to apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond simply using the claimed machine.
7. Step 2B asks whether a claimed invention which fails Step 2A contains an inventive concepts, i.e. significantly more. Here the invention does not recite significantly more than a generic computer in the form of a computing system and computing device which include memory, display, a processor, and a storage unit, however each are well-known, understood, and routine in the art. For those reasons the claims are rejected as non-patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD A RENWICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm.
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.
REGINALD A. RENWICK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3714
/REGINALD A RENWICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715