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 .
Response to Amendment
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 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(s) 1-3, 8-10, 18, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eng et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20150223416).
Regarding claim 1, Eng et al. disclose a golf course reporting system (considered as watering restriction location; see abstract; paragraph 0012) comprising at least one sensor configured to acquire data regarding a water saturation level of an area of soil (See paragraph 0010); a user device (See paragraph 0011); and a control system (See paragraph 0011) configured to: acquire the data from the at least one sensor; and generate a graphical user interface based on the data for display on the user device (See paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 2, Eng et al. disclose a golf vehicle, and wherein the user device is a display of the golf vehicle, wherein the golf vehicle is a mower, a golf cart, r a utility task vehicle (See paragraph 0011, 0012).
Regarding claim 3, Eng et al. disclose wherein the user device is a portable user device including a display (See paragraph 0011).
Regarding claims 8-10, Eng et al. disclose a sprinkler configured to provide water to the area of soil, wherein the control system is configured to transmit a command to the sprinkler, the command including at least one of: turning on the sprinkler to provide water to a first area; turning off the sprinkler; or repositioning the sprinkler to provide water to a second area; and wherein the sprinkler is a first sprinkler, further comprising a second sprinkler configured to provide water to a third area; and wherein the command includes at least one of: turning on at least one of the first sprinkler or the second sprinkler; turning off at least one of the first sprinkler or the second sprinkler; or repositioning at least one of the first sprinkler or the second sprinkler (See abstract, paragraph 0010, 0011).
Regarding claims 18, 20, Eng et al. disclose a golf course reporting system (paragraph 0012; see abstract) comprising at least one sensor configured to acquire data regarding a water saturation level of an area of soil (See paragraph 0010); a user device (See paragraph 0011); and a control system (See paragraph 0011) configured to: acquire the data from the at least one sensor; and generate a graphical user interface based on the data for display on the user device (See paragraph 0010). Eng et al. disclose one sprinkler configured to provide water to the area of soil; and transmit the graphical user interface to a user device (See paragraph 0011).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eng et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20150223416) in view of Mohindru et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20180204227).
Regarding claims 4-5, Eng et al. disclose all but fail to specifically disclose
reporting system of wherein the graphical user interface includes at least one of:(a) a hole view displaying a map corresponding to a golf hole on which the user is located;(b) a hole information panel displaying first information corresponding to the golf hole;(c) a course conditions pane displaying second information corresponding to current conditions of one or more portions of the golf hole; or (d) a player input section for receiving the current conditions of the one or more portions of the golf hole. In an analogous art Mohindru et al. disclose a hole view displaying a map corresponding to a golf hole on which the user is located, (See Paragraph 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Eng et al. with that of Mohindru et al. by including many features in the graphical user interface because it would have achieved a desired result for helping the golf course management to direct players.
[0022] The speed factor variables databases 140 contain factors that affect the pace of play. These factors include, but not limited to, number of players on the golf course, the number of players in each group, the handicap of the players, such as USGA handicap index, the pace of play of each player, and golf course's physical conditions, such as the type of golf course (sandy or hard soil), the level of difficulty of the course, the temperature, humidity, wind speed, wind direction at the course. The factors may also include week of the day and time of the day.
Regarding claim 6, Eng et al. disclose all but do not specifically disclose the graphical user interface includes the player input section. In an analogous art, Mohindru et al. disclose the graphical user interface includes the player input section (See paragraph 0023).
[0023] The prediction system 110 predicts the amount of time it would take a user to play one or more golf courses based on the user’s input. The prediction system 110 involves multiple modules.
Regarding claims 7, 19, Eng et al. disclose all but do not specifically disclose wherein the graphical user interface includes the course conditions pane. In an analogous art, Mohindru et al. disclose the graphical user interface includes the course conditions pane (See paragraph 0019, 0021,0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Eng et al. with that of Mohindru et al. by including many features in the graphical user interface because it would have achieved a desired result for helping the golf course management to direct players.
Regarding claims 13-17, Eng et al. disclose the sensor as discussed wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different types of sensors for different use (See paragraph 0010,0095, 0099, 0123).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior arts do not disclose wherein: the data is first data regarding a first water saturation level of the area of soil at a first time point; the graphical user interface is a first graphical user interface providing the first water saturation level of the area at the first time point; the at least one sensor is configured to acquire second data regarding a second water saturation level of the area of soil at a second time point; and the control system is configured to: acquire the second data from the at least one sensor; and generate a second graphical user interface providing the second water saturation level of the area at the second time point based on the second data.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,622,370. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application recites
a golf course reporting system comprising:
at least one sensor configured to acquire data regarding a water saturation level of an area of soil;
a user device; and
a control system configured to: acquire the data from the at least one sensor; and
generate a graphical user interface based on the data for display on the user device.
Claim 1 of 12,622,370 discloses an irrigation system comprising:
at least one sensor configured to acquire data regarding a water saturation level of an area of soil;
a sprinkler configured to provide water to the area of soil; and
a control system configured to: acquire the data from the at least one sensor; and
adjust a watering scheme of the sprinkler based on the data to provide a desired water saturation level to the area of soil.
Though the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the golf course reporting system can comprise an irrigation system which includes a sprinkler and for performing the claimed steps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have an irrigation system in a golf course reporting system in order to provide the desired water saturation level to the area of soil that would affect the golfers playing on a golf course.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eng et al. (U.S Pub No. 20170273259) disclose aspects of the disclosure relate to a method that may include receiving a watering restriction for a location, detecting that a sprinkler controller is associated with a property within the location, and transmitting, to the sprinkler controller, the watering restriction. Additionally, a method may include receiving, at a sprinkler controller, a watering restriction for a location, the sprinkler controller associated with a property within the location, and adjusting, in response to the watering restriction, a sprinkling schedule for the property. Furthermore, a method may include receiving weather prediction information associated with a property, updating, in response to the weather prediction information, a sprinkling schedule for a sprinkler system associated with the property, receiving, after a time period, updated weather prediction information for the property, and updating the sprinkling schedule based on a comparison between the sprinkling schedule and the weather prediction information over the time period.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights