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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwase (JP 2017237925). The English translation of JP 2017237925 provided to be referenced hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1
Iwase teaches:
A system for providing motion sensor-based smart golf course round information(functional/intended use), comprising:
a portable device(2); a database(12,22); and a server(1),
wherein the portable device includes a motion sensor(26) and a global positioning system(P[0078]),
wherein the portable device is attachable to a body of a golfer(P[0054]),
wherein the motion sensor detects a swing motion of the golfer(functional/intended use; P[0054]),
wherein the database stores geographic data of a given golf course(functional/intended use; P[0078]),
wherein the server (i) receives the swing motion from the motion sensor of the portable device in real time(functional/intended use; via 284; P[0058]-P[0069]), (ii) receives the geographic data of the given golf course from the database(functional/intended use; P[0078]), (iii) detects location of the portable device using GPS data received from the GPS(functional/intended use; P[0079]), (iv) calibrates the location of the portable device using the geographic data and the GPS data(functional/intended use; via 284; P[0078]-P[0079]), and (v) generates rounding information of the golfer at a given round of golf play and transmits the rounding information to the portable device(functional/intended use; P[0101]),
wherein the rounding information is generated based on the swing motion(functional/intended use; P[0102]).
Examiner notes the phrases “for providing motion sensor-based smart golf course round information”, “detects a swing motion of the golfer “, “stores geographic data of a given golf course “, “receives the swing motion from the motion sensor of the portable device in real time”, “receives the geographic data of the given golf course from the database”, “detects location of the portable device using GPS data received from the GPS”, “calibrates the location of the portable device using the geographic data and the GPS data”, “generates rounding information of the golfer at a given round of golf play and transmits the rounding information to the portable device”, and “generated based on the swing motion”, are functional, or intended use limitations. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, examiner notes the limitations reciting the phrase “a body of a golfer”, “a swing motion of the golfer”, “geographic data of a given golf course”, “the swing motion”, “the geographic data of the given golf course”, “location”, “GPS data”, “the location”, “the geographic data”, “the GPS data”, “rounding information of the golfer”, and “the rounding information” are not actually required by the claim. MPEP 2111.01 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Regarding Claim 2
Iwase teaches:
The system of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein, upon end of play at a given hole, the portable device calculates a play score of the golfer at the given hole and transmits the play score to the server(functional/intended use;P[0058], P[0101]),
wherein the play score is obtained based on the swing motion of the golfer at the given hole(functional/intended use; P[0088]),
wherein the server further determines, based on the play score, whether a penalty stroke occurred at the given hole(functional/intended use;P[0018], P[0171]),
wherein, when a penalty stroke occurs, the server further determines a penalty location where the penalty stroke happens at the given hole and stores the penalty location(functional/intended use; P[0171]-P[0174]).
Examiner notes the phrases “upon end of play at a given hole, the portable device calculates a play score of the golfer at the given hole and transmits the play score to the server”, “wherein the play score is obtained based on the swing motion of the golfer at the given hole”, “wherein the server further determines, based on the play score, whether a penalty stroke occurred at the given hole”, and “when a penalty stroke occurs, the server further determines a penalty location where the penalty stroke happens at the given hole and stores the penalty location”, are functional, or intended use limitations. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, examiner notes the limitations reciting the phrase “a given hole”, “a play score”, “a penalty stroke”, and a “a penalty location” are not actually required by the claim. MPEP 2111.01 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Regarding Claim 3
Iwase teaches:
The system of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the server determines that an OB penalty stroke occurred when the swing motion is detected twice at a given location within a preset time period(functional/intended use; P[0171]).
Examiner notes the phrases “determines that an OB penalty stroke occurred when the swing motion is detected twice at a given location within a preset time period”, is a functional, or intended use limitation. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, examiner notes the limitations reciting the phrase “an OB penalty stroke”, “a given location”, and a “a preset time period” are not actually required by the claim. MPEP 2111.01 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Regarding Claim 4
Iwase teaches:
The system of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the server determines that a hazard penalty stroke occurred when the golfer moves towards a golf cart to retrieve a ball or bends down toward the ground to place a ball on the ground(functional/intended use; P[0171]).
Examiner notes the phrases “determines that a hazard penalty stroke occurred when the golfer moves towards a golf cart to retrieve a ball or bends down toward the ground to place a ball on the ground”, is a functional, or intended use limitation. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, examiner notes the limitations reciting the phrase “a hazard penalty stroke”, “a golf cart”, and a “a ball” are not actually required by the claim. MPEP 2111.01 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Regarding Claim 5
Iwase teaches:
The system of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the rounding information is a play score of the golfer at a given round of golf play(functional/intended use; P[0047]),
wherein the rounding information includes a tee shot distance, an out-of bounds (OB) stroke ratio, a hazard stroke ratio, an approach accuracy, and a putting accuracy, or a combination thereof(functional/intended use; P[0202], P[0203]).
Examiner notes the phrases “the rounding information is a play score of the golfer at a given round of golf play”, “the rounding information includes a tee shot distance, an out-of bounds (OB) stroke ratio, a hazard stroke ratio, an approach accuracy, and a putting accuracy, or a combination thereof”, are functional, or intended use limitations. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, examiner notes the limitations reciting the phrase “a play score”, “a given round”, and a “a tee shot distance, an out-of bounds (OB) stroke ratio, a hazard stroke ratio, an approach accuracy, and a putting accuracy, or a combination thereof” are not actually required by the claim. MPEP 2111.01 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Regarding Claim 6
Iwase teaches:
The system of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the rounding information is a play score of the golfer at the given round of golf play(functional/intended use; P[0047]),
wherein the rounding information includes a score at a uphill slope hole, a score at a hazard-prone hole, a score at a dog-leg hole, or a combination thereof(functional/intended use; the rounding information including a score at an uphill slope hole, a score at a hazard-prone holes, and/or a score at a dog-leg hole is an inherent characteristic of the “score” information includes the score on any/all of the golf holes during a given round of golf play).
Examiner notes the phrases “the rounding information is a play score of the golfer at a given round of golf play”, “the rounding information includes a score at a uphill slope hole, a score at a hazard-prone hole, a score at a dog-leg hole, or a combination thereof”, are functional, or intended use limitations. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, examiner notes the limitations reciting the phrase “a play score”, “a given round”, and a “a score at a uphill slope hole, a score at a hazard-prone hole, a score at a dog-leg hole, or a combination thereof” are not actually required by the claim. MPEP 2111.01 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Regarding Claim 8
Iwase teaches:
The system of claim 6(see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the play score of the golfer is obtained based on (i) the number of swing motion of the golfer, and (ii) the number of a penalty stroke of the golfer(functional/intended use; P[0018]-P[0019], P[0179]-P[0180]).
Examiner notes the phrase “obtained based on (i) the number of swing motion of the golfer, and (ii) the number of a penalty stroke of the golfer” is functional, or intended use limitations. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114 Additionally the limitations are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Furthermore, examiner notes the limitations reciting the phrase “the number of swing motion”, and “the number of a penalty stroke” are not actually required by the claim. MPEP 2111.01 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwase in view of Seo (US 10881941).
Regarding Claim 7
Iwase teaches:
The system of claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above),
Iwase fails to teach:
wherein, based on the geographic data and the GPS data, the server provides first strategy information and second strategy information,
wherein the first strategy information includes a distance and a height from a current location of the golfer to a hole cup of a given hole,
wherein the second strategy information includes how to play on a green of the given hole based on a slope of the green and a hole cup location of the green.
Seo teaches:
An analogous system for providing golf round information wherein, based on a geographic data(Fig 3; Col 5, ln. 5-12) and GPS data(Col 4, ln. 34-55), the system provides first strategy information and second strategy information,
wherein the first strategy information includes a distance and a height from a current location of the golfer to a hole cup of a given hole(Col 5 ln. 15 to Col 6, ln. 35),
wherein the second strategy information includes how to play on a green of the given hole based on a slope of the green and a hole cup location of the green(Col 8, ln. 56 to Col 9, ln. 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwase to incorporate the teachings of Seo to provide first and second strategy information to the golfer during a round of golf to provide not only correct distance information between a golfer's current location and a hole, but also attack guide information optimized by taking details (e.g. an obstacle and geography) of the golf course and skills of the golfer into account, and making it possible to analyze accuracy of shots played by the golfer(Col 2, ln. 60-67).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060046860 A1
Gunning; Glenn A.
US 20260102681 A1
LEE; Sang Hyun et al.
US 8202148 B2
Young; Julius
US 12440738 B2
Bryson; David Matthew
US 8460111 B2
Hart; John D.
US 12296246 B2
Peterson; Jack et al.
GB 2512380 A
RANTAKOKKO TAPANI et al.
The above references are cited for teaching devices/system for aiding a golfer during a round of play.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights