DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 12 contains “962: LIDER RADAR.” It is assumed that “LIDAR” replaces “LIDER.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
In general it is suggested to:
use semicolons to render clear which structure is narrowed (instead of relying on a new line or indentation to link a structure to its limitation); and
repeat a structure name where its omission renders unclear which structure is narrowed by a limitation.
Claims 1, 11, and 13 share similar claim recitations and thus objections. Objections to claim 1 are described in this Office communication, but the objections to claims 11 and 13 are not. Objections to claim 1 may be applied to claims 11 and 13.
Claim 1 recites, “processing circuitry to take a green taken image.” Unprogrammed processing circuitry is capable of taking a green taken image, if programmed. Thus, mere processing circuitry anticipates this limitation. For examination purposes, “processing circuitry to” is replaced with “processing circuitry configured to.”
Claim 1 recites, “the reference point position information, and to calculate a putting line.” The limitation “to calculate a putting line” does not clearly narrow the processing circuitry because “to calculate a putting line” could be interpreted to be a purpose of the “position information.” Unprogrammed processing circuitry is capable of calculating a putting line, if programmed. Thus, mere processing circuitry anticipates this limitation. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as, “the reference point position information; and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a putting line.”
Claim 7 recites, “a position sensor to detect a position.” A position sensor is capable of detecting a position, if programmed. Thus, a mere position sensor anticipates this limitation. For examination purposes, “a position sensor to detect a position” is interpreted as, “a position sensor configured to detect a position.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
In general it is suggested to:
use semicolons to render clear which structure is narrowed (instead of relying on a new line or indentation to connect a structure to its limitation); and
repeat a structure name where its omission renders unclear which structure is narrowed by a limitation.
Claims 1, 11, and 13 share similar claim recitations, and thus rejections under 35 USC § 112. Rejections under 35 USC § 112 to claim 1 are described in this office communication; claims 1, 11, and 13 are sufficiently similar that essentially these rejections apply to claims 11 and 13. Rejections to claims 11 and 13 under 35 USC § 112, however, have not been described in this office communication. Interpretations of claim 1 limitations are described in this office communication, which may be used to amend claim 1; they also may be used to amend claims 11 and 13.
Claims 1–11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a course map database having stored therein . . . to the green or near the green, and processing circuitry to take a green taken image.” In effect claim 1 recites, a course map database having stored therein processing circuitry. In essence, claim 1 recites that a virtual or digital collection of data stores a physical thing. This renders claim 1 inoperative. It is suggested that the comma preceding “and processing circuitry” is replaced with a semicolon. For the instant examination, the limitation has been interpreted as, “near the green; and processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a camera to take an image of the green; wherein the image of the green comprises green; . . . .”
Claim 1 recites, “a ball position indicating a position of the golf ball.” It is unclear whether “a ball position” and “a position of the golf ball” are different positions of the same golf ball. For examining purposes, “a position of the golf ball,” is interpreted to be, “the position of the golf ball.”
Claim 1 recites, “to calculate a ball position indicating a position of the golf ball.” It is unclear how or whether “to calculate a ball position” is narrowed by “indicating a position of the golf ball.” For the instant examination, the limitation has been interpreted as, “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a ball position and to indicate the position of the golf ball.”
Claim 1 recites, “a cup position indicating a position of the cup.” It is unclear whether “a cup position” and “a position of the cup” are different positions of the same cup, or what is the relationship between these two limitations. For the instant examination, the limitation has been interpreted as, “to a cup position and to indicate the position of the cup in the green.”
Claims 2–10 inherit the indefiniteness of base claim 1.
Claim 7 recites, “a position sensor configured to detect a position of a device.” A position is a relative property or quality. It is unclear which thing’s position is relative to the position of the device; it is unclear whether the position of the device is detected relative to a position of the sensor. For examining purposes, “a position sensor configured to detect a position of a device,” is interpreted to be, “a position sensor configured to detect a position of a device relative to the green.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of claims 1–8, 11, and 13, recites at least one step or instruction that is a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 1 recites, “a course map database” stores essentially: green surface information and a first set of coordinates relating, a green surface and a feature reference point. The “course map database” stores numerical values or mathematical relationships: coordinates associated with structures in the real world, slopes associated with coordinates, and green speed values.
Claim 1 also recites “processing circuitry [that] is configured to cause a camera to take an image of the green; wherein the image” comprises of essentially: a second set of coordinates relating, the feature reference point, the green, a cup, and a golf ball.
Claim 1 also recites, “processing circuitry [that] is configured to calculate” and indicate essentially: a third set of coordinates relating, the ball and the green surface, “using the image of the green, the green surface information, and the reference point position information.” The specification summarily discloses “matching” to calculate the third set of coordinates. Given the context, “matching” is interpreted to imply that the processing circuitry uses photogrammetry or stereophotogrammetry techniques, which are well-known mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Photogrammetry is nearly as old as photography itself. Since its development approximately 150 years ago, photogrammetry has moved from a purely analog, optical–mechanical technique to analytical methods based on computer-aided solution of mathematical algorithms and finally to digital or softcopy photogrammetry based on digital imagery and computer vision, which is devoid of any opto-mechanical hardware. Photogrammetry is primarily concerned with making precise measurements of three-dimensional objects and terrain features from two-dimensional photographs.
. . .
Photogrammetry comprises all techniques concerned with making measurements of real-world objects and terrain features from images. . . . A number of simple equations may be used for deriving measurements from single vertical photographs taken over flat terrain.
. . .
Quantitative analysis of photographs may be done manually or fully automatically from single or stereo images. . . .
. . . [A]utomatic extraction of height points based on image matching techniques allows creating digital terrain representations in the form of raster or vector elevation models.
. . .
Stereophotogrammetry is the classical way to produce DEMs [digital elevation models] from stereo pairs obtained by optical remote sensing, which is a group of passive remote sensing approaches (Lobanov, 1984; Kraus, 2007; Linder, 2009). DEMs can be derived from stereo pairs of aerial, satellite, and terrestrial images.
The basic idea of stereophotogrammetry is as follows. Suppose that there are two images of the same object taken from two different positions (Fig. 3.3). If it is possible to reconstruct geometric parameters of the photographing condition (ie, camera parameters, position, and orientation), then a stereo model of the object can be constructed, and the coordinates (x, y, z) of any point represented in both images can be computed. Stereo correlations, or image matching algorithms, are used for this purpose (Potuckova, 2004).
Photogrammetry. 3.1 Introduction [online], 3.5 Summary [online], 3.1.3 Stereophotogrammetry [online]. Elsevier B.V. [retrieved on 2026-07-02]. Retrieved from the Internet: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/photogrammetry>. For starters, computer vision (or user entry) identifies structure (feature reference point, green, cup, and ball) in an image. Then, coordinates of the identified structures are extracted from the image. Subsequently, these relative coordinates from the image, and the course map database’s stored coordinates of structures (feature reference point, green, but not the ball, and possibly not the cup), are used as inputs for well-known matching, triangulation, or yet other photogrammetry or stereophotogrammetry calculations. The calculations result in the coordinates of the ball (and possibly the coordinates of the cup), in relation to the stored coordinates of the remaining interested structures (feature reference point and green, and possibly the cup). Matching, identifying structure, extracting coordinates, triangulation, and other well-known photogrammetry or stereophotogrammetry calculations are mathematical concepts, or mental processes that a person armed with pen and paper accomplishes.
Claim 1 also recites, “processing circuitry” configured essentially to use the green surface information: to calculate a ball-to-cup putting line; and to indicate a fourth set of coordinates relating, the cup and the green. To calculate the putting line, the instant application discloses that reference JP 6714799 B2 teaches “predicting a putting line” and displaying it. (paragraph 3–4). In fact, JP 6714799 B2 teaches mathematical equations to calculate a putting line.
Claim 2 recites, if the “feature reference point is other than the cup position,” then the “processing circuitry” uses the image of the green and green surface information, and calculates essentially coordinates of the cup relative to the stored coordinates of the green surface. Like the “processing circuitry” recited in claim 1, the “processing circuitry” in claim 2 uses photogrammetry techniques that are mathematical concepts, or mental processes that a person armed with pen and paper accomplishes.
Claim 3 recites, “processing circuitry” displays the putting line on the image of the green. This is a mental process that a person with a pen and paper accomplishes.
Claim 4 recites, “processing circuitry” displays a “plurality of hitting directions” on the displayed putting line. This is a mental process that a person with a pen and paper accomplishes.
Claim 5 recites, “a lidar radar” takes an image of some structures (feature reference point, cup, and ball), and then “processing circuitry corrects” the coordinates of some of structures (cup and ball) using this image. Lidar is a technology to obtain relative coordinates of objects and topographies of a surface:
[L]aser scanning means deflecting a ranging beam in a certain pattern so that an object surface is sampled with a high point density.
. . .
. . . [A]lready shortly after the advent of lasers, very precise ranging was carried out with this new tool. As soon as lasers with high pulse repetition rates were available on the market, scanning laser systems could be realised with the ability to obtain range images. Such systems are also known as laser radar. For laser radar, two acronyms are commonly used LADAR (LAser Detection And Ranging) and LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) (Bachman, 1979, p. 2 and Jelalian, 1992, p. 1). . . .
In range measurements with laser, two major ranging principles are applied: the pulsed ranging principle, and ranging by measuring the phase difference between the transmitted and the received signal backscattered from the object surface. The phase difference method is applied with lasers that continuously emit light. These lasers are called continuous wave (CW) lasers.
In current ranging laser systems, mostly pulsed lasers are used. Pulse lasers are usually solid-state lasers, which produce high power output. . . .
. . . The most direct ranging measurement is determining the time-of-flight of a light pulse, i.e., by measuring the travelling time between the emitted and received pulse (see Fig. 3).
Wehr, A., & Lohr, U. Airborne laser scanning—an introduction and overview [online]. 7th revised edition. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 1999 [retrieved on 2026-07-02]. Retrieved from the Internet:< URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924271699000118 >. In claim 5, “processing circuitry” performs calculations similar to the ones performed in claim 1 (to find the third set of coordinates), except that compared to claim 1, in claim 5 the “processing circuitry” uses an image generated by received laser pulses and the coordinates of a different set of structures. Thus, claim 5 uses mathematical concepts, or mental processes that a person armed with pen and paper accomplishes.
Claim 6 recites, “processing circuitry updates the surface shape of the green” using the image recited in claim 5. In claim 6, “processing circuitry” implicitly repeats the photogrammetry techniques that calculate the third set of coordinates in claim 1, except using a different image and the coordinates of a different set of structures. Thus, claim 5 uses mathematical concepts, or mental processes that a person armed with pen and paper accomplishes.
Claim 7 recites, “a position sensor” detects coordinates of another structure (“a device”), and then “processing circuitry corrects” the coordinates of some of the interested structures. In claim 7, “processing circuitry” implicitly repeats the photogrammetry techniques that calculate the third set of coordinates in claim 1, except using a different image and the coordinates of a different set of structures. Thus, claim 7 uses mathematical concepts, or mental processes that a person armed with pen and paper accomplishes.
Claim 8 recites, “processing circuitry” that displays essentially a message or notice. This is a mental process that a person with a pen and paper accomplishes.
Claims 11 and 13 recite the same mathematical concepts and mental processes that claim 1 recites.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
Claims 1–11 and 13 have additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Additional elements: “course map database” (claims 1, 9–11, 13), “processing circuitry” (claims 1–10, 13), “camera” (claims 1, 7, 9–11), “display device” (claim 3), “lidar radar” (claim 5), “position sensor” (claim 7), “device having the camera mounted thereon” (claim 7), “client device” (claims 9–10, 13), “camera” (claims 9–10), and “server device” (claims 9–10).
The additional elements do not apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b). The additional elements’ machines are generic because the instant disclosure provides hardly anything particular about them. The instant disclosure only provides: names of generic apparatuses as suitable to be one of the additional elements, and names of a mathematical concept or mental process handled by one of those generic apparatuses. For example, the instant specification states,
The server device 200 is a computer. The server device 200 includes a processor 910 and also includes other pieces of hardware such as a memory 921, an auxiliary storage device 922, an input interface 930, an output interface 940, and a communication device 950. . . .
In the storage unit 250, a course map database 251 is stored. . . .
The functions of the position calculating unit 210, the line calculating unit 220, the image generating unit 230, and the database updating unit 240 are implemented by software. The storage unit 250 is included in the memory 921. Note that the storage unit 250 may be included in the auxiliary storage device 922 or may be included as distributed into the memory 921 and the auxiliary storage device 922.
(paragraph 17–19).
The additional elements identified above also do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
The additional elements also do not effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment. Each claim as a whole is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas in claims 1–11 and 13 are not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). The claims merely implement the abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “processing circuitry” recited in claims 1–10, and 13). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The instant disclosure includes no unconventional technical solution or improvement that the claimed invention provides, compared to prior art, according to MPEP 2106.05(a). The disclosure states that a user inputting relative coordinates of cup and ball (JP 6714799 B2) is a problem that the claimed invention solves. (paragraph 5). But the claimed invention solves this merely by claiming mental processes or generic machines that use mathematical concepts to automate inputting. (See section above, Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)). The instant disclosure also states two other problems in prior art JP 6744663 B2, that a user must “detect[] a cup position . . . with high accuracy at the time of setting up play strategy,” and that “detection of a ball position is not described.” (paragraph 5). The prior art reference JP 6744663 B2 allegedly having these two problems is not concerned with recommending a putting line once a golf ball is on the green. The device in JP 6744663 B2 instead provides cup position relative to green to facilitate planning shots to get a ball onto the green and near the cup. Even if the instant claimed invention solves these problems, it does so merely by claiming mental processes or generic machines that use mathematical concepts to automate the inputting that a user performs (manually) in prior art reference JP 6714799 B2.
Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract ideas in claims 1–11, and 13, are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, each of these claims is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1–11, and 13 include additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements: “course map database” (claims 1, 9–11, 13), “processing circuitry” (claims 1–10, 13), “camera” (claims 1, 7, 9–11), “display device” (claim 3), “lidar radar” (claim 5), “position sensor” (claim 7), “device having the camera mounted thereon” (claim 7), “client device” (claims 9–10, 13), “camera” (claims 9–10), and “server device” (claims 9–10).
Above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components or machines that automate execution of the above-identified abstract ideas. Such a function is well understood, routine, and conventional if claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092–93. The additional elements are generic computer components or machines because the instant disclosure provides hardly anything particular about them. The instant disclosure only provides: names of generic apparatuses as suitable to be one of the additional elements, and names of a mathematical concept or mental process handled by one of those generic apparatuses. For example, the instant specification states,
The server device 200 is a computer. The server device 200 includes a processor 910 and also includes other pieces of hardware such as a memory 921, an auxiliary storage device 922, an input interface 930, an output interface 940, and a communication device 950. . . .
In the storage unit 250, a course map database 251 is stored. . . .
The functions of the position calculating unit 210, the line calculating unit 220, the image generating unit 230, and the database updating unit 240 are implemented by software. The storage unit 250 is included in the memory 921. Note that the storage unit 250 may be included in the auxiliary storage device 922 or may be included as distributed into the memory 921 and the auxiliary storage device 922.
(paragraph 17–19).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms. This does not violate 35 U.S.C. §112(a) because the disclosed computer components or machines perform functions known by those of ordinary skill. However, the instant specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of these additional elements because it describes them in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The above-identified additional elements in claims 1–11, and 13 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f); Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how claiming a computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present to support an assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), a disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill would recognize that the claimed invention improves conventional technology, technological processes, or the functioning of a computer. The instant specification does not explain how the claimed invention provides such an improvement, nor does the instant specification explain an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claims, to a technical problem. Instead, the specification essentially applies known photogrammetry techniques and conventional devices to solve apparent problems in prior art.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses of claims 1–11 and 13 are directed to applying abstract ideas on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, they do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually the above-identified additional elements in claims 1–11, and 13 do not add significantly more because they attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, the additional elements implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, the additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claims 1–11, and 13 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1–11, and 13 are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1–11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine-generated translation into English of Lee (KR 101841172 B1) in view of O’Connor et al. ‘706 (US 10478706 B2).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a golf assist system to assist a user on a green in a golf course. (paragraph 1). This golf assist system comprises:
a course map database having stored therein green surface information including
a position of the green and a surface shape of the green (“a green detection LIDAR sensor unit (100) attached to at least one surface of the mobile terminal (1000) for sensing a golf course green and generating a 3D green image” at paragraph 28), and
green speed information indicating a rolling speed of a golf ball on the green.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) may further include a pointer unit (105) that displays the currently sensed location on the golf course green on the golf course green.
. . .
For example, a 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) can be stored on a server by the network unit (170). In addition, a pre-generated 3D green image may be stored on the server through a separate process. In addition, information regarding the condition or type of turf on the golf course greens, or weather information about the location of the golf course, may be stored on the server. And the golf course information can be generated based on various information stored on a server, and the golf course information can be received by a mobile terminal (1000) by a network unit (170). The putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) using the course information of the golf course.
(paragraph 43, 76).
Lee also teaches processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a camera to take an image of the green;
wherein the image of the green comprises
a cup provided in the green, and
the golf ball on the green;
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a ball position and to indicate the position of the golf ball by using
the image of the green,
the green surface information:
[A] camera unit formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal for photographing the golf green and enabling a control unit to obtain ball position information and hole position information.
. . .
The control unit (120) can acquire shooting information by operating the camera unit (110) in
response to a request to generate a golf putting line.
. . .
In one embodiment of the present invention, a mobile terminal for providing golf putting line information (711) may include a camera unit (110) formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal, which photographs a golf course green and causes a control unit (120) to obtain ball position information and hole position information.
The camera unit (110) can be operated by the control unit (120) to photograph the golf course green and display it on the output unit (150).
The camera unit (110) can photograph the golf course green to enable the control unit to obtain golf ball location information and hole location information.
[I]f the surface to which the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) is
attached and the surface to which the camera is formed are the same, the direction of the golf
course green sensed by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) and the direction captured
by the camera unit can be matched. This allows the user to obtain location information of the golf ball and the location of the hole by photographing the location of the golf ball and the location of the hole with the camera unit (110), while the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) senses the golf course green to generate a 3D green image.
(paragraph 15, 65, 158–161).
Lee also teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a putting line from the ball position to a cup position and to indicate the position of the cup in the green by using the green surface information and the green speed information.
[P]utting line information generation unit (122) aligns the golf ball position information and the hole position information obtained by the camera unit with the 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100), and generates golf putting line information (711) after simulating using a known putting trajectory physical property simulation method, and the putting trajectory physical property simulation method is as follows.
The simulation of putting trajectory properties is generally performed using the principles of force. The position of the ball (latitude, longitude, altitude) relative to the time axis is calculated through numerical analysis methods by considering the force applied when striking the golf ball, the static friction applied between the golf ball and the green, the kinetic friction generated as the golf ball rolls (distinguished as translation friction and rotational friction), and the gravity generated according to the slope of the green. At this time, if the minimum and maximum speeds for the golf ball to enter the hole cup are specified in advance, the golf ball will enter the hole cup while tracing different trajectories depending on the strength of the putt.
. . .
In one embodiment of the present invention, the putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) based additionally on golf course information obtained in advance from a server.
(paragraph 70–71, 75).
Lee does not teach storing and use of a reference point position.
O’Connor ‘706 teaches a course map database, having stored therein reference point position information indicating a position of a feature reference point on a reference feature fixed to the green or near the green.
In accordance with various embodiments, the plurality of fixed reference points (e.g., the plurality of sprinkler heads 112-126) will be utilized to determine the location of a target [like a golf ball or cup] on green 102. It will be understood that other fixed objects proximate to or near green 102 can also be used to determine the target location (provided that their 3D coordinates have been pre-determined) including, but not limited to, drain covers, placards, signage, structures, grandstands, and equipment.
(column 5, line 8–16). O’Connor ‘706 also teaches processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a camera to take two images of the green;
wherein the images of the green comprise
the feature reference point,
a cup provided in the green, and
the golf ball on the green:
In accordance with this embodiment, at least two (2) images of the identified target (e.g., target 130 [e.g., golf cup] or target 140 [e.g., golf ball]) are captured (see, block 320) together with all or some of a plurality of fixed reference points that are known or otherwise received (see, block 310). The capturing of these two images can be accomplished from a stand-alone camera or a user device equipped with a camera for such purpose (e.g., having close range photogrammetry capability). As will be appreciated, the method is suitable for both metric and non-metric cameras.
(column 6, line 43–53). O’Connor ‘706 also teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a ball position by using
the two images of the green,
the green surface information, and
the reference point position information:
Once the two images of the target are captured, an estimation of transformation parameters between image space (e.g., camera) and object space (e.g., golf green) is made (see, block 330) and as further detailed herein below. That is, from the two captured images of the target, a determination is made as to which ones of the plurality of fixed reference points appear in both images and using a set of overlapping (i.e., appearing in both images) reference points the location determination for the target is made.
(column 6, line 53–62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by including in, the course map database, the image of the green, and in calculating the ball position: the feature reference point or the reference point position information, as taught by O’Connor ‘706. The motivation for this modification would have been improving the accuracy of the calculation of the ball position. One of ordinary skill would have known that including the reference point position information, relative to the golf ball position, in only one image of the green is sufficient to calculate the ball position because Lee, unmodified, already teaches calculation of the ball position despite no reference point position information. Including the reference point position information in the course map database would have been motivated by, and would have satisfied, an underlying principle of photogrammetry, namely, coordinates of the same thing/point, in at least two datasets of different points’ relative coordinates, are helpful to calculate the real coordinates relating the thing/point with an interested structure/point appearing in only one of the two datasets.
As to claim 2, Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, already includes processing circuitry that calculates the cup position by using the image of the green, green surface information, and the reference point position information if the feature reference point is other than the cup position. (See rejection to claim 1 above, citing O’Connor ‘706 at column 6, line 43–53; column 6, line 53–62).
As to claim 3, Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not teach superposing a putting line image on the image of the green.
Lee itself however, does teach
an output unit (150) for outputting the generated golf putting line information (711), and the output unit (150) can output information indicating the movement of the mobile terminal (1000) between the first user input and the second user input.
The output unit (150) may include a display device capable of displaying visual information.
. . .
[T]he control unit can display the generated 3D green image and the golf putting line information (711) on the output unit.
(paragraph 82–83, 115).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 1, by superposing a putting line image on the generated 3D green image as taught by Lee, to display a putting strategy to a user.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by superposing a putting line image on the image of the green, to display a putting strategy to a user on an image that is representative of the user’s view of the ball, golf green, and cup.
As to claim 4, Lee as modified to reject claim 3 above, does not expressly teach adding a plurality of hitting directions to the putting line image.
However, Lee itself does teach that
the step of outputting golf putting line information may include the step of outputting putting direction information and putting strength information together based on the golf putting line information output. That is, the mobile terminal (1000) can output putting direction information and putting strength information together at the output unit (150) based on at least one of golf putting line information, golf ball position information and/or hole position information. For example, putting direction information may include information indicating the direction in which the golf ball should be struck, and may be expressed relative to the location of the hole.
(paragraph 187).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 3, by adding a hitting direction to the putting line image as taught by Lee, so that the user understands where to direct a putt according to a putt strategy generated by the golf assist system.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by adding a plurality of hitting directions to the putting line image because such a modification is an obvious duplication of parts, producing no new or unexpected result, to allow the user to choose a putt strategy specific to the user’s ability or preference. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
As to claim 5, Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, already teaches that the processing circuitry takes a green point group image, generated by a LIDAR radar. (Lee at paragraph 28, 77). And Lee as modified to reject claim 1, already teaches that the image taken by the camera includes the feature reference point, as taught by O’Connor ‘706. (O’Connor ‘706 at column 5, line 8–16; column 6, line 43–53).
Lee as modified to reject claim 1, does not expressly teach including in the green point group image: a feature reference point, the cup provided in the green, and the golf ball on the green. Lee as modified to reject claim 1, also does not necessarily expressly teach correcting the cup position and the ball position by using the green point group image.
However, Lee itself teaches that “the surface [of a mobile terminal (1000)] to which the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) is attached and the surface [of the mobile terminal] to which the camera is formed are the same . . . .” (paragraph 51). Additionally, Lee itself teaches
In one embodiment of the present invention, the control unit (120) may further include a 3D green image correction unit (121) for correcting a generated 3D green image based at least
partially on current position information and angular velocity.
The control unit (120) can cause the 3D green image correction unit (121) to correct the generated 3D green image based on the current location of the mobile terminal obtained by the location information acquisition unit (130) and the angular velocity of the mobile terminal obtained by the angular velocity sensor unit (140).
(paragraph 73–74).
Because Lee as modified to reject claim 1, already teaches a camera that takes an image of a feature reference point, the cup provided in the green, and the golf ball on the green, as taught by combining Lee and O’Connor ‘706; and because a LIDAR radar and camera are on the same surface of a device, as taught by Lee; it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing processing circuitry that takes a green point group image including the feature reference point, the cup provided in the green, and the golf ball on the green by a lidar radar, and corrects the cup position and the ball position by using the green point group image. Such a modification would have been an obvious duplication of parts, to apply known photogrammetry techniques to yet another image from which relative coordinates of interested structures are extracted, to more closely approach establishing the true relative coordinates of interested structures. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
As to claim 6, Lee as modified to reject claim 5 above, already teaches that the golf assist system includes the surface shape of the green in the green surface information.
[A] green detection LIDAR sensor unit (100) attached to at least one surface of the mobile terminal (1000) for sensing a golf course green and generating a 3D green image . . . .
. . .
For example, a 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) can be stored on a server by the network unit (170). In addition, a pre-generated 3D green image may be stored on the server through a separate process. In addition, information regarding the condition or type of turf on the golf course greens, or weather information about the location of the golf course, may be stored on the server. And the golf course information can be generated based on various information stored on a server, and the golf course information can be received by a mobile terminal (1000) by a network unit (170). The putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) using the course information of the golf course.
(paragraph 28, 77).
However, as stated in the rejection to claim 5 above, Lee teaches “a 3D green image correction unit (121) for correcting a generated 3D green image based at least partially on current position information and angular velocity.” Additionally, Lee itself teaches that “the surface [of a mobile terminal (1000)] to which the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) is attached and the surface [of the mobile terminal] to which the camera is formed are the same . . . .” (paragraph 51).
Because Lee as modified to reject claim 5, already teaches LIDAR that generates a surface shape of the green as taught by Lee; and because a LIDAR radar and camera are on the same surface of a device, as taught by Lee; it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 5, by employing processing circuitry that updates the surface shape of the green, included in the green surface information, by using the green point group image. Such a modification would have been an obvious duplication of parts, to apply known photogrammetry techniques to another image from which relative coordinates of points on an interested surface are extracted, to more closely approach establishing the true interested surface topography at the moment of a putt, and thereby improve the accuracy of the putting line calculation. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
As to claim 7, Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not teach a position sensor.
However, Lee itself does teach that
[i]n one embodiment of the present invention, the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) may further include a pointer unit (105) that displays the currently sensed location on the golf course green on the golf course green.
. . .
[A] mobile terminal (1000) for providing golf putting line information (711) may further include a location information acquisition unit (130) for acquiring current location information of the mobile terminal (1000) and an angular velocity sensor unit (140) for acquiring angular velocity of the mobile terminal (1000), and a control unit (120) may cause a 3D green image correction unit (121) to correct a generated 3D green image based at least partially on the acquired current location information and angular velocity.
(paragraph 43, 78). Moreover, O’Connor ‘706 teaches that
the above described embodiment does not require that the exterior orientation of the camera be known a priori (e.g., from inertial sensors). However, if these parameters are known a priori, this information can be included in equation (10) as a constraint, potentially adding numerical stability and increased accuracy to the estimation of the target location.
(column 10, line 13–19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 1, by employing a position sensor to detect a position of a device having the camera mounted thereon, wherein the processing circuitry corrects the surface shape of the green by using the position of the device having the camera mounted thereon as taught by Lee or O’Connor ‘706, to more closely approach establishing the true interested surface topography at the moment of a putt, and thereby improve the accuracy of the putting line calculation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by using the position of the device having the camera mounted thereon to correct the cup position and the ball position. Such a modification would have been an obvious duplication of parts, to apply known photogrammetry techniques to relative coordinates of more interested structures, to more closely approach establishing the true relative coordinates of interested structures. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
As to claim 8, Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, already teaches that the image of the green includes the feature reference point, the cup, and the golf ball, as taught by the combination of Lee and O’Connor ‘706.
Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not teach an attention notice.
However, Lee itself teaches that
[t]he control unit (120) can guide the user to photograph the position of the golf ball with the camera unit (110).
. . .
[T]he mobile terminal can provide a user interface that guides the user to photograph the location of the hole on the golf course green with the camera unit (110) by outputting a phrase (611) at the top of the output unit (150) screen that guides the location of the hole to be placed at the center of the screen.
(paragraph 66, 111).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 1, by configuring the processing circuitry to cause an attention notice to be displayed to call attention so that the image of the green includes the cup, and the golf ball, as taught by Lee, to inform or remind a user of the structures that the user must capture in the image so that the relative coordinates of the cup and golf ball can be extracted from the image and thereby be used to calculate their relative coordinates on the surface of the green, and then be used to calculate the putting line.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by configuring the processing circuitry to cause an attention notice to be displayed to call attention so that the image of the green includes the feature reference point. Such a modification would have been an obvious duplication of parts to ensure that the relative coordinates of more interested structures can be extracted from the image, relative coordinates as extracted that the processing circuitry uses to calculate their real life relative coordinates on the surface of the green. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
As to claim 9, Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not expressly teach a client device carried by the user, nor does it expressly teach that a server device communicates with the client device.
Lee itself teaches,
Additionally, the computer system in this specification may include any device/device including a processor having computing functions. Such computer systems may include, for example, smartphones, user terminals, servers, mobile terminals, mobile stations, etc., but are not limited to these.
. . .
As illustrated in FIG. 1, a mobile terminal (1000) for providing golf putting line information (711) may include a green detection lidar sensor unit (100), a camera unit (110), a control unit (120), a location information acquisition unit (130), an angular velocity sensor unit (140), an output unit (150), a user input unit (160), a network unit (170), and a connection unit (180). The aforementioned components are exemplary, and additional components may exist or some of them may be omitted.
. . .
[A] mobile terminal (1000) for providing golf putting line information (711) may include . . . a camera unit (110) formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal (1000) for photographing a golf green . . . .
. . .
[T]he putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) based additionally on golf course information obtained in advance from a server.
For example, a 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) can be stored on a server by the network unit (170).
Golf course information can be generated based on various information stored on a server, and the golf course information can be received by a mobile terminal (1000) by a network unit (170).
(paragraph 24, 27–28, 75–77).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 1, by providing, as taught by Lee, a client device carried by the user. Such a modification would have provided the user with the convenience to interact with the golf assist system with the client device that may remain on his or her person.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by providing, as taught by Lee, a server device to communicate with the client device. Such a modification would have provided a way to gather inputs to calculate a putting line.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by providing, as taught by Lee, that the server device includes the course map database, and the processing circuitry. Such a modification would have decreased the burden on the client device, and thereby increase the client device battery life.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by providing, as taught by Lee, that the client device includes the camera, and transmits the image of the green taken by the user to the server device. Such a modification would have provided the user with a convenient way of using the camera to take an image of interested structures, and communication to the server device would have been necessary for the processing circuitry to access inputs to calculate the putting line. In general, given that Lee discloses all structures in claim 9, distribution of the course map database and processing circuitry, between, the client device and the server device, would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts, an obvious matter of design choice, to decrease the burden on the client device, and thereby increase the client device battery life. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C).
As to claim 10, Lee as modified to reject claim 1 above, does not expressly teach a client device that is a movable body, nor does it expressly teach that a server device communicates with the client device.
Lee itself teaches,
Additionally, the computer system in this specification may include any device/device including a processor having computing functions. Such computer systems may include, for example, smartphones, user terminals, servers, mobile terminals, mobile stations, etc., but are not limited to these.
. . .
As illustrated in FIG. 1, a mobile terminal (1000) for providing golf putting line information (711) may include a green detection lidar sensor unit (100), a camera unit (110), a control unit (120), a location information acquisition unit (130), an angular velocity sensor unit (140), an output unit (150), a user input unit (160), a network unit (170), and a connection unit (180). The aforementioned components are exemplary, and additional components may exist or some of them may be omitted.
. . .
[A] mobile terminal (1000) for providing golf putting line information (711) may include . . . a camera unit (110) formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal (1000) for photographing a golf green . . . .
. . .
[T]he putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) based additionally on golf course information obtained in advance from a server.
For example, a 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) can be stored on a server by the network unit (170).
Golf course information can be generated based on various information stored on a server, and the golf course information can be received by a mobile terminal (1000) by a network unit (170).
(paragraph 24, 27–28, 75–77).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified to reject claim 1, by providing, as taught by Lee, a client device having the camera mounted thereon and being a movable body to be operated in the golf course. Such a modification would have provided the user with a convenient way of handling the camera to take an image of interested structures.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by providing, as taught by Lee, a server device to communicate with the client device. Such a modification would have provided a way to gather inputs to calculate a putting line.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by providing, as taught by Lee, that the server device includes the course map database, and the processing circuitry. Such a modification would have lightened the burden on the client device, and thereby increase the client device battery life.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lee, already modified by the preceding paragraph, by providing, as taught by Lee, that the client device transmits the image of the green taken by the camera to the server device. Such a modification and communication to the server device would have been necessary for the processing circuitry to access inputs to calculate the putting line. In general, given that Lee discloses all structures in claim 9, distribution of the course map database and processing circuitry, between, the client device and the server device, would have been an obvious rearrangement of parts, an obvious matter of design choice, to lighten the burden on the client device, and thereby increase the convenience to the user. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(C).
As to claim 11, Lee teaches a golf assist method for use in a golf assist system to assist a user on a green in a golf course. (paragraph 1). This golf assist method comprises:
a computer includes a course map database having stored therein green surface information including
a position of the green and a surface shape of the green (“a green detection LIDAR sensor unit (100) attached to at least one surface of the mobile terminal (1000) for sensing a golf course green and generating a 3D green image” at paragraph 28), and
green speed information indicating a rolling speed of a golf ball on the green.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) may further include a pointer unit (105) that displays the currently sensed location on the golf course green on the golf course green.
. . .
For example, a 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) can be stored on a server by the network unit (170). In addition, a pre-generated 3D green image may be stored on the server through a separate process. In addition, information regarding the condition or type of turf on the golf course greens, or weather information about the location of the golf course, may be stored on the server. And the golf course information can be generated based on various information stored on a server, and the golf course information can be received by a mobile terminal (1000) by a network unit (170). The putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) using the course information of the golf course.
(paragraph 43, 76).
Lee also teaches that the golf assist method comprises taking an image of the green using a camera;
wherein the image of the green comprises
a cup provided in the green, and
the golf ball on the green;
calculating a ball position and to indicate the position of the golf ball by using
the image of the green,
the green surface information:
[A] camera unit formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal for photographing the golf green and enabling a control unit to obtain ball position information and hole position information.
. . .
The control unit (120) can acquire shooting information by operating the camera unit (110) in
response to a request to generate a golf putting line.
. . .
In one embodiment of the present invention, a mobile terminal for providing golf putting line information (711) may include a camera unit (110) formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal, which photographs a golf course green and causes a control unit (120) to obtain ball position information and hole position information.
The camera unit (110) can be operated by the control unit (120) to photograph the golf course green and display it on the output unit (150).
The camera unit (110) can photograph the golf course green to enable the control unit to obtain golf ball location information and hole location information.
[I]f the surface to which the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) is
attached and the surface to which the camera is formed are the same, the direction of the golf
course green sensed by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) and the direction captured
by the camera unit can be matched. This allows the user to obtain location information of the golf ball and the location of the hole by photographing the location of the golf ball and the location of the hole with the camera unit (110), while the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) senses the golf course green to generate a 3D green image.
(paragraph 15, 65, 158–161).
Lee also teaches calculating a putting line from the ball position to a cup position and indicating the position of the cup in the green by using the green surface information and the green speed information.
[P]utting line information generation unit (122) aligns the golf ball position information and the hole position information obtained by the camera unit with the 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100), and generates golf putting line information (711) after simulating using a known putting trajectory physical property simulation method, and the putting trajectory physical property simulation method is as follows.
The simulation of putting trajectory properties is generally performed using the principles of force. The position of the ball (latitude, longitude, altitude) relative to the time axis is calculated through numerical analysis methods by considering the force applied when striking the golf ball, the static friction applied between the golf ball and the green, the kinetic friction generated as the golf ball rolls (distinguished as translation friction and rotational friction), and the gravity generated according to the slope of the green. At this time, if the minimum and maximum speeds for the golf ball to enter the hole cup are specified in advance, the golf ball will enter the hole cup while tracing different trajectories depending on the strength of the putt.
. . .
In one embodiment of the present invention, the putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) based additionally on golf course information obtained in advance from a server.
(paragraph 70–71, 75).
Lee does not teach storing and use of a reference point position.
O’Connor ‘706 teaches a computer that includes a course map database, having stored therein reference point position information indicating a position of a feature reference point on a reference feature fixed to the green or near the green.
In accordance with various embodiments, the plurality of fixed reference points (e.g., the plurality of sprinkler heads 112-126) will be utilized to determine the location of a target [like a golf ball or cup] on green 102. It will be understood that other fixed objects proximate to or near green 102 can also be used to determine the target location (provided that their 3D coordinates have been pre-determined) including, but not limited to, drain covers, placards, signage, structures, grandstands, and equipment.
(column 5, line 8–16). O’Connor ‘706 also teaches taking two images of the green by using a camera;
wherein the images of the green comprise
the feature reference point,
a cup provided in the green, and
the golf ball on the green:
In accordance with this embodiment, at least two (2) images of the identified target (e.g., target 130 [e.g., golf cup] or target 140 [e.g., golf ball]) are captured (see, block 320) together with all or some of a plurality of fixed reference points that are known or otherwise received (see, block 310). The capturing of these two images can be accomplished from a stand-alone camera or a user device equipped with a camera for such purpose (e.g., having close range photogrammetry capability). As will be appreciated, the method is suitable for both metric and non-metric cameras.
(column 6, line 43–53). O’Connor ‘706 also teaches calculating a ball position by using
the two images of the green,
the green surface information, and
the reference point position information:
Once the two images of the target are captured, an estimation of transformation parameters between image space (e.g., camera) and object space (e.g., golf green) is made (see, block 330) and as further detailed herein below. That is, from the two captured images of the target, a determination is made as to which ones of the plurality of fixed reference points appear in both images and using a set of overlapping (i.e., appearing in both images) reference points the location determination for the target is made.
(column 6, line 53–62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by including in, the course map database, the image of the green, and in calculating the ball position: the feature reference point or the reference point position information, as taught by O’Connor ‘706. The motivation for this modification would have been improving the accuracy of the calculation of the ball position. One of ordinary skill would have known that including the reference point position information, relative to the golf ball position, in only one image of the green is sufficient to calculate the ball position because Lee, unmodified, already teaches calculation of the ball position despite no reference point position information. Including the reference point position information in the course map database would have been motivated by, and would have satisfied, an underlying principle of photogrammetry, namely, coordinates of the same thing/point, in at least two datasets of different points’ relative coordinates, are helpful to calculate the real coordinates relating the thing/point with an interested structure/point appearing in only one of the two datasets.
As to claim 13, Lee teaches a server device to communicate with a client device to be carried by a user on a green in a golf course. (paragraph 11, 13, 76). The server comprises:
a course map database having stored therein green surface information including
a position of the green and a surface shape of the green (“a green detection LIDAR sensor unit (100) attached to at least one surface of the mobile terminal (1000) for sensing a golf course green and generating a 3D green image” at paragraph 28), and
green speed information indicating a rolling speed of a golf ball on the green.
In one embodiment of the present invention, the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) may further include a pointer unit (105) that displays the currently sensed location on the golf course green on the golf course green.
. . .
For example, a 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) can be stored on a server by the network unit (170). In addition, a pre-generated 3D green image may be stored on the server through a separate process. In addition, information regarding the condition or type of turf on the golf course greens, or weather information about the location of the golf course, may be stored on the server. And the golf course information can be generated based on various information stored on a server, and the golf course information can be received by a mobile terminal (1000) by a network unit (170). The putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) using the course information of the golf course.
(paragraph 43, 76).
Lee also teaches processing circuitry that acquires, from the client device, an image of the green;
wherein the image of the green comprises
a cup provided in the green, and
the golf ball on the green;
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a ball position and to indicate the position of the golf ball by using
the image of the green,
the green surface information:
[A] camera unit formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal for photographing the golf green and enabling a control unit to obtain ball position information and hole position information.
. . .
The control unit (120) can acquire shooting information by operating the camera unit (110) in
response to a request to generate a golf putting line.
. . .
In one embodiment of the present invention, a mobile terminal for providing golf putting line information (711) may include a camera unit (110) formed on at least one surface of the mobile terminal, which photographs a golf course green and causes a control unit (120) to obtain ball position information and hole position information.
The camera unit (110) can be operated by the control unit (120) to photograph the golf course green and display it on the output unit (150).
The camera unit (110) can photograph the golf course green to enable the control unit to obtain golf ball location information and hole location information.
[I]f the surface to which the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) is
attached and the surface to which the camera is formed are the same, the direction of the golf
course green sensed by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) and the direction captured
by the camera unit can be matched. This allows the user to obtain location information of the golf ball and the location of the hole by photographing the location of the golf ball and the location of the hole with the camera unit (110), while the green detection lidar sensor unit (100) senses the golf course green to generate a 3D green image.
(paragraph 15, 65, 158–161).
Lee also teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a putting line from the ball position to a cup position and to indicate the position of the cup in the green by using the green surface information and the green speed information.
[P]utting line information generation unit (122) aligns the golf ball position information and the hole position information obtained by the camera unit with the 3D green image generated by the green detection lidar sensor unit (100), and generates golf putting line information (711) after simulating using a known putting trajectory physical property simulation method, and the putting trajectory physical property simulation method is as follows.
The simulation of putting trajectory properties is generally performed using the principles of force. The position of the ball (latitude, longitude, altitude) relative to the time axis is calculated through numerical analysis methods by considering the force applied when striking the golf ball, the static friction applied between the golf ball and the green, the kinetic friction generated as the golf ball rolls (distinguished as translation friction and rotational friction), and the gravity generated according to the slope of the green. At this time, if the minimum and maximum speeds for the golf ball to enter the hole cup are specified in advance, the golf ball will enter the hole cup while tracing different trajectories depending on the strength of the putt.
. . .
In one embodiment of the present invention, the putting line information generation unit (122) can generate golf putting line information (711) based additionally on golf course information obtained in advance from a server.
(paragraph 70–71, 75).
Lee does not teach storing and use of a reference point position.
O’Connor ‘706 teaches a course map database, having stored therein reference point position information indicating a position of a feature reference point on a reference feature fixed to the green or near the green.
In accordance with various embodiments, the plurality of fixed reference points (e.g., the plurality of sprinkler heads 112-126) will be utilized to determine the location of a target [like a golf ball or cup] on green 102. It will be understood that other fixed objects proximate to or near green 102 can also be used to determine the target location (provided that their 3D coordinates have been pre-determined) including, but not limited to, drain covers, placards, signage, structures, grandstands, and equipment.
(column 5, line 8–16). O’Connor ‘706 also teaches processing circuitry, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a camera to take two images of the green;
wherein the images of the green comprise
the feature reference point,
a cup provided in the green, and
the golf ball on the green:
In accordance with this embodiment, at least two (2) images of the identified target (e.g., target 130 [e.g., golf cup] or target 140 [e.g., golf ball]) are captured (see, block 320) together with all or some of a plurality of fixed reference points that are known or otherwise received (see, block 310). The capturing of these two images can be accomplished from a stand-alone camera or a user device equipped with a camera for such purpose (e.g., having close range photogrammetry capability). As will be appreciated, the method is suitable for both metric and non-metric cameras.
(column 6, line 43–53). O’Connor ‘706 also teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to calculate a ball position by using
the two images of the green,
the green surface information, and
the reference point position information:
Once the two images of the target are captured, an estimation of transformation parameters between image space (e.g., camera) and object space (e.g., golf green) is made (see, block 330) and as further detailed herein below. That is, from the two captured images of the target, a determination is made as to which ones of the plurality of fixed reference points appear in both images and using a set of overlapping (i.e., appearing in both images) reference points the location determination for the target is made.
(column 6, line 53–62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee by including in, the course map database, the image of the green, and in calculating the ball position: the feature reference point or the reference point position information, as taught by O’Connor ‘706. The motivation for this modification would have been improving the accuracy of the calculation of the ball position. One of ordinary skill would have known that including the reference point position information, relative to the golf ball position, in only one image of the green is sufficient to calculate the ball position because Lee, unmodified, already teaches calculation of the ball position despite no reference point position information. Including the reference point position information in the course map database would have been motivated by, and would have satisfied, an underlying principle of photogrammetry, namely, coordinates of the same thing/point, in at least two datasets of different points’ relative coordinates, are helpful to calculate the real coordinates relating the thing/point with an interested structure/point appearing in only one of the two datasets.
Conclusion
Prior art that is not relied upon but considered relevant to the instant disclosure:
Pennacchia et al. (US 10585993 B2)
Pennacchia et al. (US 20250256188 A1)
Lee (KR 102310102 B1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENRICO MIOTTO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 6 p.m..
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.
/ENRICO MIOTTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights