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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims filed 09/2472024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
The Drawings filed on 09/27/2024 are noted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 “estimate a pace of play” (line 5). It is underclear whether the “pace of play” is a single projected round time, a per-hole rate, or a per-group metric. The scope of the estimate is ambiguous. Dependent claims 2-17 inherit this discrepancy by nature of their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 20 recites “to substantially provide the desired pace of play.” Substantially is a relative term of degree. The claim provides no standard for how close to the desired pace the setup must come, rendering the boundary unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “which golfers to group together and at which hole each group … should start.” It is indefinite whether output is required for all golfers/holes or any subset. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1-20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html). The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a system in claims 1-20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, specifically, independent Claim 1 (Currently Amended) recites, “1. A pace of play system for a golf course, the pace of play system comprising:
one or more processing circuits (additional elements) configured to:
acquire a plurality of past parameters regarding the golf course;
acquire a plurality of current parameters relating to the golf course; and
estimate a pace of play for one or more golfers playing the golf course based on the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters.”
Claim 18 recites: “18. A pace of play system for a golf course, the pace of play system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (additional element), cause the one or more processors to:
acquire a plurality of past parameters regarding the golf course;
acquire a plurality of current parameters relating to the golf course; and
estimate a pace of play for one or more golfers playing the golf course based on the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters.”
Claim 20 recites: “20. A pace of play system for a golf course, the pace of play system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (additional element) to:
acquire a plurality of past parameters regarding the golf course;
acquire a plurality of current parameters relating to the golf course;
estimate a pace of play for one or more golfers playing the golf course based on the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters; and
determine at least one of an updated setup for the golf course, a shotgun start recommendation, or an adjustment to a tee sheet for the golf course based on the pace of play; wherein each of the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters includes at least two of a course setup of the golf course, an environmental condition at the golf course, a golf cart regulation at the golf course, real-time statistics associated with the one or more golfers, a profile associated with the one or more golfers, an event occurring at the golf course, or a walker versus rider status of the one or more golfers.”
Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 18 and 20, without the structural/generic computer recitations, recites the steps of acquire … past parameters, acquire … current parameters, and estimate a pace of play… based on the parameters. Estimating/predicting a value (pace) from collected data is a mental process (i.e. an evaluation of golf marshal or starter can perform mentally or with pen and paper) and a mathematical concept. Claim 20 adds “determine .. an updated setup…a shotgun start recommendation, or an adjustment to a tee sheet,” which is managing the use of the course and scheduling player – a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Both are abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG. Further, dependent Claims 2-18 and 19 include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer. Additionally the additional elements of: one or more processing circuits are generically recited computer elements in the claims that do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. For example, applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent Claims is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements recite one or more processing circuits. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, 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. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
Furthermore, the recitation of the above-identified generic computer limitations in Claims 1-20 amounts 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 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and 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 the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, none of the Claims 1-2, and 4 to 20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and the 2019 PEG.
AIA Notice
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0093158 A1 to Stephens et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0231460 A1 to Pringle.
Regarding Claim 1, and similarly recited Claims 18, and 20, Stephens discloses a pace of play system for a golf course, the pace of play system comprising:
one or more processing circuits (¶¶ [0016] discloses a computing device, which may be a cloud based server, that uses pace management algorithms) configured to:
acquire a plurality of current parameters relating to the golf course (¶¶ [0016] discloses a positioning device for each golfer group, which may be a small GPS tracking device or smartphone application, and carried by each golfer group on the course (walking or riding)); and
estimate a pace of play for one or more golfers playing the golf course based on the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters (¶¶ [0015], [0031], [0038], [0084] discloses using integrated technologies, such as GPS and the Internet, the invention tracks golfers and makes intelligent decisions about whether a golfer group is playing at the speed it should be playing).
However, Stephens does not explicitly disclose: acquire a plurality of past parameters regarding the golf course.
In a related invention, Pringle discloses acquire a plurality of past parameters regarding the golf course (¶¶ [0083]-[0087] discloses a pace of play monitoring system on a golf course).
Stephens discloses a device and method for regulating a pace of golf play. A golf course is divided into segments, with each segment assigned a time for completion by a user golfer group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Pringle with the system of Stephens in order to predict and prevent slow game play, the stated objective of both Stephens and Pringle. The combination is the use of a known predicting timing technique to improve a known pace-management server, yielding the predictable result of pace estimate.
Regarding Claim 2, and similarly recited Claims 19, and 20, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters includes at least two of a course setup of the golf course, an environmental condition at the golf course, a golf cart regulation at the golf course, real-time statistics associated with the one or more golfers, a profile associated with the one or more golfers, an event occurring at the golf course, or a walker versus rider status of the one or more golfers (Stephens, ¶¶ [0016]-[0018] discloses the data/parameters used during pace management of game play).
Regarding Claim 3, and similarly recited Claim 20, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 2, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to:
acquire a desired pace of play for the golf course (Stephens, ¶¶ [0015]-[0017]); and
generate an updated setup for the golf course based on the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters to substantially provide the desired pace of play (Stephens, ¶¶ [0015]-[0019]).
Regarding Claim 11, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters includes the environmental condition, wherein the environmental condition for the past parameters includes a past weather condition at the golf course, and wherein the environmental condition for the current parameters includes at least one of a current weather condition or a forecasted weather condition at the golf course (Stephens, ¶¶ [0018]).
Regarding Claim 12, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 2, wherein the plurality of current parameters include the real-time statistics, and wherein the real-time statistics include at least one of a yardage reached by the one or more golfers during a previous shot, a location of a ball prior to and after the previous shot, or a time spent by the one or more golfers on a previous hole (Stephens, (Stephens, ¶¶ [0022], [0056], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 13, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 2, wherein the plurality of current parameters include the profile associated with the one or more golfers, and wherein the profile includes at least one of a handicap of the one or more golfers, an age of the one or more golfers, past statistics of the one or more golfers on the golf course, or a number of rounds of golf played by the one or more golfers (Stephens, ¶¶ [0047]).
Regarding Claim 14, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters includes the event occurring at the golf course, and wherein the event occurring at the golf course includes at least one of a professional tournament, an amateur tournament, a junior tournament, a private outing, or a public outing (Stephens, ¶¶ [0047]).
Regarding Claim 15, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of past parameters and the plurality of current parameters includes the walker versus rider status of the one or more golfers, and wherein the walker versus rider status of each of the one or more golfers is determined by identifying whether each of the one or more golfers is assigned to a golf cart or not (Stephens, ¶¶ [0016], [0047]).
Regarding Claim 16, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide a shotgun start recommendation for the golf course based on the pace of play, and wherein the shotgun start recommendation identifies which golfers to group together and at which hole each group of golfers should start at on the golf course (Stephens, ¶¶ [0084]).
Regarding Claim 17, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: determine, based on the pace of play, one or more gaps in a tee sheet for the golf course; and adjust the tee sheet by adding one or more new golfers at a tee time and a hole location corresponding to the one or more gaps (Stephens, ¶¶ [0051]).
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0093158 A1 to Stephens et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0231460 A1 to Pringle and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0163210 A1 to Adams.
Regarding Claim 4, Stephens in view of Pringle discloses the pace of play system of Claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the course setup includes pin positions of pins on the golf course and tee positions of tees on the golf course.
In a related invention, Adams discloses wherein the course setup includes pin positions of pins on the golf course and tee positions of tees on the golf course (¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0050] discloses storing per-hole green/pin location readings on a PDA/processor and The golf course module 18 contains golf course information from a plurality of golf courses. The information maintained in the golf course module 18 includes, for example, hole layouts, distances, pin and tee placements, hazard locations, and topographical data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Adams with the combined system of Stephens and Pringle in order to offer players usable information designed to improve upon their enjoyment of a round of golf during game play.
Regarding Claim 5, Stephens in view of Pringle and Adams discloses the pace of play system of Claim 4, wherein the pin positions and the tee positions are acquired from GPS devices positioned or positionable proximate the tees and the pins (Adams, ¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 6, Stephens in view of Pringle and Adams discloses the pace of play system of Claim 4, wherein the pin positions and the tee positions are acquired from a user portal accessible via a user computing device (Adams, ¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 7, Stephens in view of Pringle and Adams discloses the pace of play system of Claim 4, wherein the updated setup for the golf course includes at least one of a new tee position for at least one of the tees or a new pin position for at least one of the pins (Adams, ¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 8, Stephens in view of Pringle and Adams discloses the pace of play system of Claim 3, wherein the course setup includes terrain characteristics of a terrain about the golf course (Adams, ¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 9, Stephens in view of Pringle and Adams discloses the pace of play system of Claim 8, wherein the updated setup for the golf course includes an adjustment to the terrain (Adams, ¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 10, Stephens in view of Pringle and Adams discloses the pace of play system of Claim 9, wherein the adjustment to the terrain includes at least one of (a) adding, removing, or moving a sand trap, (b) increasing or decreasing a height of grass, or (c) planting or cutting down trees (Adams, ¶¶ [0022]-[0023], [0043]-[0050]).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are examined above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights