DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of an Information Disclosure Statement on 12/18/2024 has been received and considered.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0255407 to Rivas in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,517,854 to Jung.
With regard to claim 1, Rivas discloses method for automatic scoring (e.g., see at least paragraph 10, “The score is automatically calculated”; see also paragraph 48) using a user's mobile terminal (e.g., see at least paragraph 50, that states “The player may use software application 116 to monitor the golf course 104 and the position of the golf ball through the communication device 114, such as a smart phone, tablet , or laptop”) in a hybrid golf system comprising a field (e.g., see at least paragraph 51 that states “The real putting area 112, i.e., green, is played on a real golf course 104”) configured to allow a plurality of users to play real golf therein and a screen golf module (e.g., see at least paragraph 10 that states “a player strikes a golf ball in a golf simulator form a virtual teeing area and a virtual fairway”) provided on one side of the field (e.g., see at least Fig. 4A that shows a central screen golf location and then adjacent real green putting surfaces 122a-i), the screen golf module configured to allow the users to play golf on a virtual golf course therein, the automatic score calculation method comprising:
calculating the number of virtual golf shots of each user (e.g., see at least paragraph 44 that notes that multiple players 124a-d participate) based on golf play on the virtual golf course by a simulator in the screen golf module (e.g., see at least paragraph 48 that states “the system 100 automatically calculates the score of the player from the combined play, or number of strikes on the virtual and real golf balls 142, 144 on the virtual teeing area 106, the virtual fairway 108, and the real putting area 112”; see also paragraph 68);
initiating field play on the field subsequent to the golf play on the virtual golf course and transmitting information about the golf play from the simulator to a mobile terminal carried by each of the plurality of users (e.g., see at least paragraph 48 that discusses a portable communication device 114);
detecting a shot of each user (e.g., see at least paragraph 50 that states software application 116 enables the player to track the real golf ball 144); and
calculating a score of each user by summing the number of virtual golf shots of each user and the number of shots of each user detected by the motion data (e.g., see at least paragraph 48 that states “the system 100 automatically calculates the score of the player from the combined play, or number of strikes on the virtual and real golf balls 142, 144 on the virtual teeing area 106, the virtual fairway 108, and the real putting area 112”; see also paragraph 68).
Rivas fails to expressly disclose that a mobile device with a sensor is used to detect user swings/shots and providing guidance of the users in line to take a shot.
In the same field of endeavor (claims 1-5), Jung teaches a mobile device (e.g., see Figs. 26-27 and column 17, lines 32-57 that show/discuss a mobile device 2551 attached to a user’s waist) to detect a user swing/shots (e.g., see column 6, lines 55-67 for discussion of automatic scoring and manual correction; see also column 14, lines 23-62 for discussion of detecting motion) and provides guidance of each user (e.g., see at least Fig. 22 and column 13, line 60 to column 14, line 5 that discusses tracking each golfer)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify Rivas with the mobile sensor as taught by Jung in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In this case, allowing the user to sense scoring data with a mobile device decreases the need for expensive fixed sensing devices and also helps associate movement data with a specific user.
Claims 6-8 are made obvious by Rivas in view of Jung based on the same analysis set forth above for claims 1-5, which are similar in claim scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0105416 to Arand discusses a system and method for playing golf with a virtual screen and a field green (e.g., see Fig. 1)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0379445 to Korpach discusses a golf ball placement system (e.g., see at least Fig. 2)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0384343 to Vollbrecht discusses a multiplayer, indoor golf system (e.g., see at least Fig. 3)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0276488 to Cottam discusses detecting golf club movement with a mobile device sensor (e.g., see at least Fig. 11)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0229079 to Ito discusses detecting golf club movement with a mobile device sensor (e.g., see at least Figs. 1 and 2)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0036095 to Shultz discusses a virtual and live play hybrid golf attraction (e.g., see at least Fig. 4)
U.S. Patent No. 7,037,208 to McNamara discusses a compact golf facility and a method of playing a golf game (e.g., see at least Fig. 3)
U.S. Patent No. 4,836,551 to LaSalle discusses a golf game utilizing a shortened fairway having full scale realism (e.g., see Figs. 1 and 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES S MCCLELLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30AM-5:00PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James S. McClellan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights