DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 22-41 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “S92” has been used to designate both “GENERATE SEARCH RESULT INDICATING POSITION OF GOLF BALL” in Fig. 9 and “generates an image representing that search of the golf ball has been timed out” in 22:10-13;
reference character “S93” has been used to designate both “GENERATE SEARCH RESULT INDICATING SEARCH IS TIMED OUT” and “transmits the search result” in 22:13-14; and
reference character “S94” is used to designated “TRANSMIT SEARCH RESULT” in Fig. 9, but S93 is used to designate “transmits the search result” in 22:13-14.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “S94” in Fig. 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
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;
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
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.
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.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724).
As per Claim 37, Vanlandingham discloses a golf support system (10) to support a user (24) to play golf (as per Fig. 4) on a golf course (50), and to include a course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16) to be operated in the golf course (as per 142, 144, 180), and to transport a person (24) or a piece of luggage (26) (Figs. 1, 4, 8; ¶17, 21, 28, 36, 43-44) the golf support system (10) comprising:
processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) (Fig. 2; ¶18-22)
to photograph a trajectory (as per “in the first step 136, the controller 32 uses the camera 44 to detect the golf ball 53 and determine, based on a series of images, if and when the golf ball 53 moves” in ¶33) of a golf ball (53) hit by the user (24), by using a camera (44) mounted on the course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16), as a trajectory image (as per step 136) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6; ¶17-21, 28-33);
to calculate the trajectory (as per “the controller 32 uses images from the camera 44 to track the golf ball 53” in ¶33) of the golf ball (53) by using the trajectory image (as per step 136), as a predicted trajectory (as per 138) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6; ¶17-21, 28-33), and
to calculate a predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33) being a drop position of the golf ball (53) by using the predicted trajectory (as per 138), and to calculate a moving route (as per 188 via 180) of the course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16) to the predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46).
As per Claim 38, Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16) is a personal mobility vehicle (PMV) for a single passenger (as per “one seat 22” in ¶17) (Fig. 1; ¶17).
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 22-23, 25-26, 31-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of Ferras (US Pub. No. 2020/0269121).
As per Claim 22, Vanlandingham discloses a golf support system (10) to support a user (24) to play golf (as per Fig. 4) on a golf course (50), and to include a moving body (12, 14, 16) to be operated in the golf course (50) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶17, 21), the golf support system (10) comprising:
processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) to photograph a trajectory (as per “in the first step 136, the controller 32 uses the camera 44 to detect the golf ball 53 and determine, based on a series of images, if and when the golf ball 53 moves” in ¶33) of a golf ball (53) hit by the user (24), by using a camera (44) mounted on the moving body (12, 14, 16), as a trajectory image (as per step 136) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6; ¶17-21, 28-33);
to calculate the trajectory (as per “the controller 32 uses images from the camera 44 to track the golf ball 53” in ¶33) of the golf ball (53) by using the trajectory image (as per step 136), as a predicted trajectory (as per 138) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6; ¶17-21, 28-33);
to calculate a predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33) being a drop position of the golf ball (53) by using the predicted trajectory (as per 138), and to calculate a moving route (as per 188 via 180) of the moving body (12, 14, 16) to the predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46),
to determine a search area (as per 140) to search for the golf ball (53) based on the predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33), to search for the golf ball (53) by photographing the search area (as per 140) with the camera (44) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46).
Vanlandingham further discloses a display device (34) that displays the location of the golf ball (53) to the golfer (24) (Fig. 1; ¶33, 41). Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein determining the search area occurs when the moving body arrives at the predicted drop position and to display a search result obtained by search on a display device.
Ferras discloses a display device (700) that renders a depiction of a golf course playing surface (100) that includes a marker (702) indicating a current location (704) of a golf ball (Fig. 7A; ¶39). The marker (702) is based upon a determined resting location of the golf ball based on one or more images (¶39). The marker (702) is used to assist a player to find the physical golf ball as located along and/or within the physical golf course playing surface (¶39). Like Vanlandingham, Ferras is concerned with golf information systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham and Ferras, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by assisting a player to find the golf ball. Applying the teachings of Ferras to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates “wherein determining the search area occurs when the moving body arrives at the predicted drop position and to display a search result obtained by search on a display device” in that display (34) of Vanlandingham would when the vehicle (10) arrives (as per step 188) at the new location of the golf ball (53) output a depiction of a golf course playing surface that includes a marker indicating a current location of the golf ball as per Ferras.
As per Claim 23, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the moving body (12, 14, 15) is {an autonomous delivery robot}, a personal mobility vehicle (PMV) allowing a person (24) to ride therein (as per seat 22) and to travel (as per 144) (Figs. 1, 8; ¶17, 36, 41), or {an autonomous flying object}.
As per Claim 25, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the processing circuitry searches (44, 32, 33) for the golf ball (53) by performing an image recognition process (as per “using recognition techniques” in ¶21) on an image obtained by photographing (via 44) the search area (as per 140) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46).
Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein the circuitry, when the golf ball is specified, specifies a position of the golf ball in the golf course, generates the search result in which the position of the golf ball is superimposed on an image of the golf course, and displays the search result on the display device.
See rejection of Claim 22 for discussion of teachings of Ferras.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham and Ferras, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by assisting a player to find the golf ball. Applying the teachings of Ferras to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates “wherein the circuitry, when the golf ball is specified, specifies a position of the golf ball in the golf course, generates the search result in which the position of the golf ball is superimposed on an image of the golf course, and displays the search result on the display device” in that display (34) of Vanlandingham would when the vehicle (10) arrives (as per step 188) at the new location of the golf ball (53) output a depiction of a golf course playing surface that includes a marker indicating a current location of the golf ball as per Ferras.
As per Claim 26, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the moving body (12, 14, 16) includes a projecting device (34) to project a projection mapping (as per 140) (Figs. 1, 6; ¶17-19, 28-33),
the processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) generates the projection mapping (as per 140) to guide the user (24) in a direction of the position of the golf ball (53) in the golf course (50) (Figs. 1, 6; ¶17-19, 28-33), and
the projecting device (34) projects the projection mapping (as per 140) to guide the user (24) on the golf course (50) (Figs. 1, 6; ¶17-19, 28-33).
As per Claim 31, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) controls autonomous movement (as per 188 via 180) of the moving body (12, 14, 16), generates photographing position control information (as per 188 via 174) to control a position of the moving body (12, 14, 16) so as to photograph with the camera (44) the trajectory (as per “in the first step 136, the controller 32 uses the camera 44 to detect the golf ball 53 and determine, based on a series of images, if and when the golf ball 53 moves” in ¶33) of the golf ball (53) from behind the user (24) along the golf course (50), and transmits the photographing position control information (as per 188 via 174) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46).
As per Claim 32, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) detects a posture (as per 114-134) of the user (24) at start of a shot, makes the camera (44) start photographing of the trajectory (as per “in the first step 136, the controller 32 uses the camera 44 to detect the golf ball 53 and determine, based on a series of images, if and when the golf ball 53 moves” in ¶33) of the golf ball (53) based on detection of the posture (as per 114-134) at the start of the shot (as per 188 via 114), and makes the camera (44) finish photographing based on a size of the golf ball in an image being photographed (as per 176) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46).
As per Claim 33, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the display device (34) is at least any of a display (34) mounted on the moving body (12, 14, 16) (Fig. 1; ¶17-19), and {a mobile terminal device carried by the user}.
As per Claim 36, Vanlandingham discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a golf support program (as per “the controller may be programmed” in ¶42) used in a golf support system (10) to support a user (24) to play golf (as per Fig. 4) on a golf course (50), and to include a moving body (12, 14, 16) to be operated in the golf course (50) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶17, 21), the golf support program causing a computer (32) to perform:
a photographing process to photograph a trajectory (as per “in the first step 136, the controller 32 uses the camera 44 to detect the golf ball 53 and determine, based on a series of images, if and when the golf ball 53 moves” in ¶33) of a golf ball (53) hit by the user (24) as a trajectory image (as per step 136) by using a camera (44) mounted on the moving body (12, 14, 16) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6; ¶17-21, 28-33);
a trajectory prediction process to calculate the trajectory (as per “the controller 32 uses images from the camera 44 to track the golf ball 53” in ¶33) of the golf ball (53) as a predicted trajectory (as per 138) by using the trajectory image (as per step 136) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6; ¶17-21, 28-33);
a route calculation process to calculate a predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33) being a drop position of the golf ball (53) by using the predicted trajectory (as per 138), and to calculate a moving route (as per 188 via 180) of the moving body (12, 14, 16) to the predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46),
a ball support process to determine a search area (as per 140) for the golf ball (53) based on the predicted drop position (as per “the controller 32 … displays the new location of the golf ball 53 to the golfer 24” in ¶33), to search for the golf ball (53) by photographing the search area (as per 140) with the camera (44) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 6, 8; ¶17-21, 28-33, 43-46).
Vanlandingham further discloses a display device (34) that displays the location of the golf ball (53) to the golfer (24) (Fig. 1; ¶33, 41). Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein the determining the search area occurs when the moving body arrives at the predicted drop position, and to display a search result obtained by search on a display device.
See rejection of Claim 22 for discussion of teachings of Ferras.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham and Ferras, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by assisting a player to find the golf ball. Applying the teachings of Ferras to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates with “wherein the determining the search area occurs when the moving body arrives at the predicted drop position, and to display a search result obtained by search on a display device” in that display (34) of Vanlandingham would when the vehicle (10) arrives (as per step 188) at the new location of the golf ball (53) output a depiction of a golf course playing surface that includes a marker indicating a current location of the golf ball as per Ferras.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of Ferras (US Pub. No. 2020/0269121), further in view of Nakao (US Pub. No. 2018/0280780).
As per Claim 24, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose an autonomous flying object to autonomously fly over the golf course, and to include a bird's-eye view camera to photograph the golf course from above, wherein
the processing circuitry decides whether an area other than a fairway is included in the search area, and when the area other than the fairway is included in the search area, searches for the golf ball in the search area by photographing the search area with the bird's-eye view camera.
See rejection of Claim 22 for a discussion of teachings of Ferras.
Nakao discloses golf assistance system that includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (11) having a camera (113) and that communicates with a portable terminal (12) and server (13) (Fig. 1; ¶69-75). The portable terminal (12) exchanges data with the drone (11) and/or the server (13) and displays a bird’s eye view (Fig. 12) based on images received from the camera (113), the view including a landing position (M) at which the golf ball has stopped after a shot (¶73) (Figs 1, 12; ¶73, 78-79, 103). If the landing position is judged to be out of bounds (OB) or judged to have been likely lost, the player may be prompted to hit a provisional ball (¶122). If the golf ball is lost in a location where the drone (11) cannot follow, a notification indicating that the golf ball cannot be retrieved is generated (¶179). In this way, the system appropriately responds to a lost golf ball. Like Vanlandingham, Nakao is concerned with golf data systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham, Ferras, and Nakao, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras and Nakao to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: assisting a player to find the golf ball; and appropriately responding to a lost golf ball.
Applying the teachings of Ferras and Nakao to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates with:
“an autonomous flying object to autonomously fly over the golf course, and to include a bird's-eye view camera to photograph the golf course from above” in that the display (34) of Vanlandingham would be adapted to operate with the drone (11) of Nakao; and
“wherein the processing circuitry decides whether an area other than a fairway is included in the search area, and when the area other than the fairway is included in the search area, searches for the golf ball in the search area by photographing the search area with the bird's-eye view camera” in that the display (34) of Vanlandingham would be adapted to operate with the drone (11) of Nakao, the drone (11) of Nakao operating to detect the location of golf balls relative to boundaries of the golf course.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of Ferras (US Pub. No. 2020/0269121), further in view of Nakao (US Pub. No. 2018/0280780), further in view of USGA (“Major Change: Time for Search Before a Ball is Lost”; https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/reduced-time-for-search-before-a-ball-is-lost.html; available 2018 as per Wayback Machine).
As per Claim 27, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 25. Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry generates, when the golf ball is not specified within a time determined beforehand, the search result indicating that search for the golf ball has been timed out, and displays the search result on the display device.
See rejection of Claim 22 for a discussion of teachings of Ferras.
See rejection of Claim 24 for discussion of teachings of Nakao.
According to the United States Golf Association (USGA), there are rules governing an appropriate amount of time to search for a ball (see whole document). In most cases, if the ball is going to be found, it will be found within the first 3 minutes (see whole document). Accordingly, a rule has been issued limiting search time to 3 minutes (see whole document). In this way, golf is played in a prompt and continuous way without long pauses (see whole document). Like Vanlandingham, USGA is concerned with golf.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham, Ferras, Nakao, and USGA, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras, Nakao, and USGA to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: assisting a player to find the golf ball; appropriately responding to a lost golf ball; and providing prompt and continuous play. Applying the teachings of Ferras, Nakao, and USGA to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry generates, when the golf ball is not specified within a time determined beforehand, the search result indicating that search for the golf ball has been timed out, and displays the search result on the display device” in that the display (34) of Vanlandingham would be adapted to operate with the drone (11) of Nakao, the drone (11) of Nakao operating to determine that the ball is lost if search time exceeds 3 minutes as per USGA.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of Ferras (US Pub. No. 2020/0269121), further in view of Booher (US Pub. No. 2016/0091898).
As per Claim 28, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham further discloses a memory (as per “database” in ¶30) to store courses map information (as per “The controller may also provide information from a map of the golf hole 56 in a database” in ¶30).
Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose:
wherein the memory is to record a past travelling history of the moving body in the golf course,
wherein the processing circuitry generates the moving route so that the number of times of travelling on a same route in the golf course is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, based on the course map information.
See rejection of Claim 22 for discussion of teachings of Ferras.
Booher discloses a control system (100) for a machine (200), the machine (200) adapted to travel over a grassy area (420) (Figs. 1-2, 3A; ¶51, 57). In a learning mode (400), the control system (100) programs itself with information about the grassy area (420) including perimeters (430), avoided areas (450), and travel path (460) (Figs. 3C, 3D, 5; ¶57). In a planning mode (500), the control system (100) operates to create alternative optimized travel paths (462, 464, 466) for the machine (200) to travel over the grassy area (420) (Figs. 3F, 3G, 3H, 5; ¶57-58). This functionality can be used to vary the path of the machine (200) so that it does not always take the same route in order to prevent ruts or other damage to the ground (¶58). Like Vanlandingham, Booher is concerned with machinery control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham, Ferras, and Booher, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras and Booher to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: assisting a player to find the golf ball; and preventing damage to the ground. Applying the teachings of Ferras and Booher to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the memory is to record a past travelling history of the moving body in the golf course” in that the system of Vanlandingham would be adapted to vary the path of the machine as per Booher;
“wherein the processing circuitry generates the moving route so that the number of times of travelling on a same route in the golf course is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, based on the course map information” in that the system of Vanlandingham would be adapted to vary the path of the machine as per Booher.
As per Claim 29, the combination of Vanlandingham, Ferras, and Booher teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 28. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein an entry prohibited area (182) of the moving body (12, 14, 16) in the golf course (50) is set in the course map information (Fig. 8; ¶42, 46), and
the processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) generates the moving route (as per 188 via 180) so that only an area outside the entry prohibited area (182) is travelled, based on the course map information (Fig. 8; ¶42, 46).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of Ferras (US Pub. No. 2020/0269121), further in view of Booher (US Pub. No. 2016/0091898), further in view of Wehrlen (US Pub. No. 2004/0260467).
As per Claim 30, the combination of Vanlandingham, Ferras, and Booher teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 28. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein three-dimensional map data (as per “shape, incline, elevation” in ¶30) of the golf course (50) is set in the course map information (¶30).
Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry generates the moving route so as to avoid a route with a steep slope, based on the course map information.
Wehrlen discloses a golf cart (10) in which movement of the golf cart is restricted if the movement violates a limited access area of the golf course (Fig. 1; ¶19). Limited access areas within a golf course include greens, wet fairways, sand traps, water traps, areas in which driving a golf cart causes damage to the golf course grounds, and areas in which driving a golf cart presents a danger to the driver or others including sharp turns, steep hills, and crowded parking areas (¶19). The type of golf cart movement restrictions vary for different limited access areas to include, a prohibition of any moment, a limitation of movement to a reduced speed, or a limitation of movement in restricted directions (¶19). In this way, the golf cart (10) is controlled to prevent danger (¶19). Like Vanlandingham, Wehrlen is concerned with golf data systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham, Ferras, Booher, and Wehrlen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras, Booher, and Wehrlen to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: assisting a player to find the golf ball; preventing damage to the ground; and preventing danger. Applying the teachings of Ferras, Booher, and Wehrlen to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry generates the moving route so as to avoid a route with a steep slope, based on the course map information” in that the vehicle (10) of Vanlandingham would be adapted to avoid steep hills as per Wehrlen.
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of Ferras (US Pub. No. 2020/0269121), further in view of Cheng (US Pub. No. 2018/0290018).
As per Claim 34, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry displays on the display device a predicted trajectory image obtained by superposing the predicted trajectory on an image of the golf course.
Cheng discloses self-propelled body (10) for assisting a user (91) in playing golf, the body (10) including a display device (11) and operating with a processor (18) that receives information about the user from sensors (15, 16, 17) (Figs. 1-2; ¶16, 21-23). When the user (91) swings the golf club (93) to hit the golf ball (92), the processor (18) calculates a flight path (146) of the golf ball (92) and an estimated landing position (141) (Fig. 7; ¶29). The display device (11) operates to display the flight path (146), the estimated landing position (141), and shot information (147) (Fig. 7; ¶29). In this way, the system assists the user in playing golf (¶4). Like Vanlandingham, Cheng is concerned with golf data systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham, Ferras, and Cheng, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras and Cheng to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: assisting a player to find the golf ball; and assisting the user in playing golf. Applying the teachings of Ferras and Cheng to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates “wherein the processing circuitry displays on the display device a predicted trajectory image obtained by superposing the predicted trajectory on an image of the golf course” in that in that display (34) of Vanlandingham would when the vehicle (10) arrives (as per step 188) at the new location of the golf ball (53) output a depiction of a golf course playing surface that includes a marker indicating a current location of the golf ball as per Ferras as well as flight path information as per Cheng.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of Ferras (US Pub. No. 2020/0269121), further in view of Wehrlen (US Pub. No. 2004/0260467).
As per Claim 35, the combination of Vanlandingham and Ferras teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 22. Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose a server device to communicate with the moving body, wherein
processing circuitry of the moving body transmits the trajectory image to the server device,
processing circuitry of the server device calculates the predicted trajectory, calculates the moving route of the moving body, displays the search result, and transmits the moving route of the moving body to the moving body.
See rejection of Claim 22 for discussion of teachings of Ferras.
See rejection of Claim 30 for discussion of teachings of Wehrlen. The cart (10) further includes a communication module (36) communicating with a base station (48), the base station (48) performing centralized tracking of golf cart movement and status, providing updates to a limited access map (16) that governs available routes for the cart, and directing override of driver inputs (Figs. 1-2; ¶23-25).
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham, Ferras, and Wehrlen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Ferras and Cheng to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: assisting a player to find the golf ball; and preventing danger. Applying the teachings of Ferras and Wehrlen to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates:
with “a server device to communicate with the moving body” in that the vehicle (10) of Vanlandingham would be adapted to communicate with a base station (48) as per Wehrlen;
wherein “processing circuitry of the moving body transmits the trajectory image to the server device” in that the vehicle (10) of Vanlandingham would be adapted to transmit data to the base station (48) as per Wehrlen; and
wherein “processing circuitry of the server device calculates the predicted trajectory, calculates the moving route of the moving body, displays the search result, and transmits the moving route of the moving body to the moving body” in that the vehicle (10) of Vanlandingham would be adapted to transmit data to and receive processed data from the base station (48) as per Wehrlen.
Claims 39-41 are rejected as being unpatentable over Vanlandingham (US Pub. No. 2020/0038724) in view of McLeod (US Pub. No. 2006/0052918).
As per Claim 39, Vanlandingham discloses all limitations of Claim 37. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) photographs (via 44) a condition of the golf course (50) when the course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16) travels in the golf course (50) (¶21-22)
Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein the processing circuitry decides whether a lawn on the golf course is damaged.
McLeod discloses a system (15) for controlling golf carts (21) in which each cart (21) is in communication with a base station (17) (Figs. 1, 6; ¶23-24, 37). In one embodiment, the cart (21) operates on a golf course that has areas that are allowable and areas that are restricted (Fig. 10; ¶59-60). Restricted areas include areas under construction or repair and areas outside of the property lines (¶60). As the cart (21) travels around the course, the cart (21) may be deterred from entering the restricted areas through communications with the base station (17) (¶60-66). Like Vanlandingham, McLeod is concerned with golf data systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham and McLeod, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of McLeod to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: deterring the vehicle from entering specified restricted areas. Applying the teachings of McLeod to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates: “wherein the processing circuitry decides whether a lawn on the golf course is damaged” in that the system of Vanlandingham would be adapted to detect areas and respond to under construction or repair as per McLeod.
As per Claim 40, the combination of Vanlandingham and McLeod teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 39. Vanlandingham further discloses wherein the processing circuitry (44, 32, 33) controls autonomous movement (as per 188 via 180) of the course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16), and controls the course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16) so that the course travelling vehicle (12, 14, 16) travels by avoiding a part (as per 182) (Figs. 1, 8; ¶17, 36-44).
Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose wherein the part is where the lawn is damaged.
See rejection of Claim 39 for discussion of teachings of McLeod.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham and McLeod, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of McLeod to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: deterring the vehicle from entering specified restricted areas. Applying the teachings of McLeod to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates: “wherein the part is where the lawn is damaged” in that the system of Vanlandingham would be adapted to detect and respond to areas under construction or repair as per McLeod.
As per Claim 41, the combination of Vanlandingham and McLeod teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 39. Vanlandingham does not expressly disclose: a server device to store course map information being map data of the golf course, wherein the server device reflects information on a part where the lawn is damaged in the course map information.
See rejection of Claim 39 for discussion of teachings of McLeod.
Therefore, from these teachings of Vanlandingham and McLeod, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of McLeod to the system of Vanlandingham since doing so would enhance the system by: deterring the vehicle from entering specified restricted areas. Applying the teachings of McLeod to the system of Vanlandingham would result in a system that operates with “a server device to store course map information being map data of the golf course, wherein the server device reflects information on a part where the lawn is damaged in the course map information” wherein the part is where the lawn is damaged” in that the system of Vanlandingham would be adapted to detect and respond to areas under construction or repair by communication with a base station as per McLeod.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCready (US Pub. No. 2005/0227791) discloses a virtual caddy system and method. Leech (US Pub. No. 2014/0038750) discloses a golf aid including heads up display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656