DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
Claims 21 and 26 are method claims that recite the limitations assessing errors estimated for using trajectory determined from observations made using at least one golf ball sensor, wherein each of the errors affects identification of an originating location of a detected golf shot through a first value projected back to the originating location to determine a first effect of the error and a second value multiplied by a distance to the originating location to determine a second effect of the error, providing a map indicating at least a preferred location for the at least one golf ball sensor for use in setting up an object tracking system, and identifying the originating location for the detected golf shot from the two or more physical locations based on the first effect of the error and the second effect of the error. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation using a series of mathematical calculations and assessing the results of the calculations. The claim limitations encompass performing mathematical calculations on an estimated error to determine the first and second effects of the estimated error and identifying an originating location on a map based on the calculations. Therefore, the claim recites a series of mathematical calculations
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. No outcome beyond the calculation is set forth other than displaying a result by providing a map or an indication of at least one preferred location. The observation of the two or more golf ball shots is considered an additional element of the data that is received, or simply data gathering. This is an insignificant extra solution activity. The golf ball observations are simply received by the golf ball sensor. The only remaining subject matter is the enabling step (i.e., the abstract idea itself) which provides for calculations involving data that was received.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as explained above, the claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology or field of use, a golf ball sensor (i.e., a computer device). No outcome beyond assessing the errors and identifying a location on a map is set forth. The golf ball observations are considered additional elements of data gathering. The two or more golf shots are simply “observed” by the golf ball sensor.
In summary, claims 21 and 26 set forth abstract idea that does not include a practical application not significantly more and is thereby considered ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 22-25 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more for the same reasons as claims 21 and 26 above. Claims 22-25, 27-34, and 36-40 depend on claims 21 and 26 respectively and recite limitations similar to claims 21 and 26 such as assessing, estimating, projecting, multiplying, and determining.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerci et al US 20200139193 (hereinafter Guerci) in view of Takagi US 5,513,841.
Regarding claim 35, Guerci discloses a system (see fig. 1) comprising:
a building comprising tee areas (venue, bays 20, see fig. 1, [0021], [0023])
targets on a golf range (see [0029], claim 8); and
a golf ball sensor system comprising one or more golf ball sensors comprising an optical sensor, a radar sensor, or a combination of thereof, wherein a dedicated sensor system is not included for any one of the tee areas in the building (camera 18; each bay does not have a camera 18, see fig. 1, [0021], [0023]-[0024]).
Guerci does not disclose tee areas located on more than one level of the building.
In the same field of endeavor, Takagi discloses a building comprising ee areas located on more than one level of the building (see figs. 2 and 4, col. 4, lines 18-33, col. 8, lines 23-30, col. 11, lines 38-45).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Takagi with Guerci with a reasonable expectation of success by having tee zones on multiple levels, as taught by Takagi, for the benefit of enabling golfers in the different levels to strike the golf balls at different locations without interference from each other.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerci et al US 20200139193 (hereinafter Guerci) in view of Takagi US 5,513,841 as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Hutchison US 20080158354.
Regarding claim 36 as applied to claim 35, the combination of Guerci and Takagi discloses the claimed invention except wherein the one or more golf ball sensors comprise at least one sensor attached to an awning above and in front of the tee areas. Hutchison discloses one sensor attached to an awning above and in front of an observed area (see figs. 8 and 11, [0058], [0065], [0067]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hutchison with the combination of Guerci and Takagi with a reasonable expectation of success by integrating a sensor/camera into the awning as taught by awning, for the benefit of observing golf shots from the tee areas.
Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerci et al US 20200139193 (hereinafter Guerci) in view of Takagi US 5,513,841 as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Nauck 5,413,345.
Regarding claim 37 as applied to claim 35, the combination of Guerci and Takagi disclose the claimed invention except wherein the one or more golf ball sensors comprise two or more sensors, and the golf ball sensor system comprises: the two or more sensors; at least one computer connected or integrated with each of the two or more sensors to create respective discrete sensor systems; and a central computer system configured to coordinate trajectory predictions received from the discrete sensor systems and make a final determination as to which of the tee areas is confirmed and reported as an origin for a specific golf ball being tracked. In the same field of endeavor, Nauck discloses one or more golf ball sensors comprising two or more sensors (20-25, 30-32, see col. 3, lines 25-35), and the golf ball sensor system comprises:
the two or more sensors (20-25, 30-32, see col. 3, lines 25-35);
at least one computer connected or integrated with each of the two or more sensors to create respective discrete sensor systems (image processor 60, see fig. 2, col. 4, lines 7-9); and a central computer system (76, see col. 4, lines 5-7) configured to coordinate trajectory predictions received from the discrete sensor systems (col. 4, line 55 - col. 5, lines 12) and make a final determination as to which of the tee areas is confirmed and reported as an origin for a specific golf ball being tracked (col. 5, lines 9-34).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nauck with the combination of Guerci and Takagi with a reasonable expectation of success by providing sensor information from multiple sensors to a computer/processor, for prediction/projection of source tee location, as taught by Nauck, for the benefit of tracking, recording, and displaying the path of one or more golf balls from the time each golf ball is struck or after it is in flight, until it reaches its final point.
Regarding claim 38 as applied to claim 35, the combination of Guerci and Takagi discloses the claimed invention except wherein the golf ball sensor system comprises at least one computer communicatively coupled with the one or more golf ball sensors, and the at least one computer is configured to perform golf shot detection, golf shot origination determination, and golf ball flight tracking for multiple golf balls concurrently, in real-time, while golf balls are still in flight and additional golf balls are being hit from the tee areas of the building. In the same field of endeavor, Nauck discloses a golf ball sensor system (see fig. 1) comprising at least one computer (image processor 60, see fig. 2, col. 4, lines 7-9) communicatively coupled with the one or more golf ball sensors (20-25, 30-32, see col. 3, lines 25-35), and the at least one computer is configured to perform golf shot detection, golf shot origination determination, and golf ball flight tracking for multiple golf balls concurrently, in real-time, while golf balls are still in flight and additional golf balls are being hit from the tee areas of the building (see figs. 1 and 2, col. 3, lines 32-62, col. 4, line55 – col. 5, line 9).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Nauck with the combination of Guerci and Takagi with a reasonable expectation of success by providing sensor information from multiple sensors to a computer/processor, for prediction/projection of source tee location, as taught by Nauck, for the benefit of tracking, recording, and displaying the path of one or more golf balls from the time each golf ball is struck or after it is in flight, until it reaches its final point.
Regarding claim 39 as applied to claim 38, the combination of Guerci, Takagi and Nauck disclose the claimed invention. Nauck further discloses wherein the at least one computer is configured to identify a display device on which to show information regarding a specific golf shot assessed by the golf shot origination determination (see fig. 2, col. 5, lines 40-60).
Regarding claim 40 as applied to claim 39, the combination of Guerci, Takagi and Nauck disclose the claimed invention. Nauck further discloses wherein the at least one computer is configured to cause the information to be shown on the display device, and the information comprises golf shot statistics, a golf shot rendering and/or an animation in a virtual golf game for the specific golf shot (see fig. 2, col. 5, lines 40-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tawwater et al US 11,027,193 discloses a game-play environment that includes a tee box, a range surface, and a monitor. The tee box is configured to allow a player to hit a golf ball onto the range surface. The range surface has a plurality of physical markers. The monitor is positioned so that the player can see the monitor while in the tee box. The monitor depicts a virtual environment that corresponds to a desired virtual game. Depending on the game selected, a set of virtual components are displayed on the monitor.
Curchod US 5,437,457 discloses golf ball trajectory and spin sensing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, RESHA DESAI can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
