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 Objections
Claims 2-5, 8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
• Claim 2, line 1, “the step” should read as “a step”.
• Claim 3, line 1, “the step” should read as “a step”.
• Claim 4, line 1, “the step” should read as “a step”.
• Claim 5, line 1, “the step” should read as “a step”.
• Claim 8, line 1, “the step” should read as “a step”.
• Claim 10, line 1, “the step” should read as “a step”.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-20.
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method for providing user-specific information to a golfer (i.e., a process). Claims 11-15 are drawn to a system for providing user-specific information to a golfer (i.e., a manufacture). Claims 16-20 are drawn to a rangefinder for providing user-specific information to a golfer (i.e., a manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-20.
Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising: obtaining ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by a user;
generating a user data set based upon the ball flight data;
and prior to the user attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course: determining a line of sight distance from a current position of the user and the target, measuring one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generating user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of sight distance and the measured one or more conditions, displaying the user-specific shot information to the user.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can obtain ball flight data to provide user-specific information to a golfer. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “the user is limited by personal, highly subjective recollections or estimations as to the typical ball flight characteristics or flight path (e.g., carry distance, direction, etc.) she or he normally achieves with each club” [0006].
Independent claims 11 and 17 describe similar steps as claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are directed towards mini-tasks (obtaining ball flight data, generating a user dataset, and determining a line of sight distance, etc.) for a method, system, and rangefinder for providing user-specific information to a golfer. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using computing devices (independent claims 1, 11, and 16 and dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Similarly, the limitations of memory, processors, and computer-readable mediums (independent claims 1, 11, and 16 and dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See 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). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., acquiring and receiving, etc.) performed by memory, processors, and computer-readable mediums, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined “an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 11, and 16 and dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under US 20090298605 A1 (“Wiegers”) in view of KR 20230070516 A (“Hermansen”).
In regards to claim 1, Wiegers discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
A method comprising: obtaining ball flight data associated with ([0067], “embodiments … may be used … to … determine ball flight data”) at least one golf ball struck by a user ([0067], “embodiments … may be used by a golfer … to sense the golfer's swing characteristics while striking a golf ball”);
generating a user data set based upon the ball flight data ([0076], “the computing device … associates the swing … data with the ball flight data by storing both sets of data”);
and prior to the user attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course: determining a line of sight distance from a current position of the user and the target ([0074], “a distance between … rest position … and a flagstick”), measuring one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target ([0074], “a distance between … rest position … and a hazard”), generating user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of sight distance and the measured one or more conditions ([0076], “first column … of database … indicates a shot … number; the second column … indicates a … swing characteristic for each of the shots … and the third column … indicates ball flight data for each of the shots”), displaying the user-specific shot information to the user ([0075], “ball flight data and swing characteristic data may be associated in … different ways, including … displaying the data together on the display”).
Hermansen discloses
and prior to the user attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course: determining a line of sight (page 14, paragraph 3, “The wall height is … used to determine the … line of sight”)
Wiegers and Hermansen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and launching sports balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method comprising: obtaining ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by a user; generating a user data set based upon the ball flight data; distance from a current position of the user and the target, measuring one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generating user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of sight distance and the measured one or more conditions, displaying the user-specific shot information to the user, as disclosed by Wiegers, and prior to the user attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course: determining a line of sight, as disclosed by Hermansen, to provide wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an audible command, sensors, and voice data for wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods.
In regards to claim 3, Wiegers discloses
wherein the ball flight data includes determined carry distances for a plurality of different club types ([0078], “FIG. 8 shows an exemplary database … for associating a golf club type with swing characteristic data and ball flight data”).
In regards to claim 5, Wiegers discloses
wherein the step of generating a user data set based upon the ball flight data further includes estimating an elevation-corrected carry distance at two or more designated elevations above sea level for ([0074], “The ball flight data may … take into account … a distance between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball … a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a fairway; a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a green … a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a flagstick; or a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a hazard.”) each of a plurality of different club types based upon the normalized carry distances ([0078], “the computing device may associate swing characteristic data, ball flight data, and golf club types”).
In regards to claim 6, Wiegers discloses
wherein the user data set provides an estimated angle-corrected carry distance at a positive slope angle and a negative slope angle relative to horizontal for each of the elevation-corrected carry distances ([0074], “data may be representative of any aspect of a golf shot, including, but not limited to a distance between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball; an angle between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball”).
In regards to claim 7, Wiegers discloses
wherein the step of generating a user data set includes generating a plurality of simulated golf shots from the ball flight data by a flight engine ([0079], “database … lists the cumulative results of the shots”).
In regards to claim 8, Wiegers discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the step of determining a line of sight distance includes operating a rangefinder by the user ([0044], “the electronic device … may be placed on the ground … with the laser beams directed toward the golf ball”).
Hermansen discloses
wherein the step of determining a line of sight distance includes operating (page 14, paragraph 3, “The wall height is … used to determine the … line of sight”)
Wiegers and Hermansen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and launching sports balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method comprising: obtaining ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by a user; generating a user data set based upon the ball flight data; distance from a current position of the user and the target, measuring one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generating user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of sight distance and the measured one or more conditions, displaying the user-specific shot information to the user, a rangefinder by the user, as disclosed by Wiegers, and prior to the user attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course: determining a line of sight, wherein the step of determining a line of sight distance includes operating, as disclosed by Hermansen, to provide wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an audible command, sensors, and voice data for wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods.
In regards to claim 9, Wiegers discloses
wherein the ball flight data includes first club ball flight data for two or more golf balls as struck by the user with a first club type ([0078], “FIG. 8 shows an exemplary database … for associating a golf club type with swing characteristic data and ball flight data”), the method further comprising: generating a mathematical representation of shot dispersion associated with the first club ball flight data ([0067], “the electronic device … may be used … to … calculate golf-related statistics”);
and displaying an image indicative of the mathematical representation to the user ([0067], “the electronic device … may be used … to … display representations of the swing characteristics and ball flight data”).
In regards to claim 10, Wiegers discloses
wherein the step of displaying includes the image indicative of the mathematical representation as adjusted for a current elevation of the user overlaid to a representation of a golf course hole ([0085], “the computing device may display an overlay showing that the shot was made with a driver, traveled approximately 200 yards, and was approximately 5 yards from the center of the green or other desired path. The computing device may also display some of the swing characteristic data”).
Claims 2, 4, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under Wiegers in view of Hermansen and US 20160193501 A1 (“Nipper”).
In regards to claim 2, Wiegers discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the step of obtaining ball flight data includes: operating a launch monitor to collect data generated by at least one golf ball struck by the user in a field of view of the launch monitor;
and deriving the ball flight data from the collected data ([0074], “the computing device … calculates ball flight data based on … two positions”).
Nipper discloses
wherein the step of obtaining ball flight data includes: operating a launch monitor to collect data generated by at least one golf ball struck by the user in a field of view of the launch monitor ([0015], “FIG. 3 shows … data collected by the launch monitor”);
Wiegers and Nipper are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and golf gaming systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method comprising: obtaining ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by a user; generating a user data set based upon the ball flight data; distance from a current position of the user and the target, measuring one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generating user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of sight distance and the measured one or more conditions, displaying the user-specific shot information to the user, and deriving the ball flight data from the collected data, as disclosed by Wiegers, wherein the step of obtaining ball flight data includes: operating a launch monitor to collect data generated by at least one golf ball struck by the user in a field of view of the launch monitor, as disclosed by Nipper, to provide a launch monitor for improvements in golf gaming systems. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of a launch monitor for improvements in golf gaming systems.
In regards to claim 4, Wiegers does not disclose wherein the step of deriving the ball flight data includes adjusting the determined carry distances for an elevation of the launch monitor relative to sea level during the step of operating the launch monitor to provide normalized carry distances.
Nipper discloses
wherein the step of deriving the ball flight data includes adjusting the determined carry distances for an elevation of the launch monitor relative to sea level during the step of operating the launch monitor to provide normalized carry distances ([0039], “The launch monitor system (LMS) … may … make observations and gather data created when a player uses a golf club to strike a ball, and the ball accelerates off a tee … the LMS is configured to monitor and collect one or more parameters of a struck ball from a tee area or one or more parameters of a swing of the golf club used to strike the ball. The data generated by the LMS is processed … to generate a flight model for the struck ball so that predictions may be made, such as a predicted trajectory, a predicted landing position, and a predicted landing time.”).
Wiegers and Nipper are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and golf gaming systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method comprising: obtaining ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by a user; generating a user data set based upon the ball flight data; distance from a current position of the user and the target, measuring one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generating user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of sight distance and the measured one or more conditions, displaying the user-specific shot information to the user, and deriving the ball flight data from the collected data, as disclosed by Wiegers, wherein the step of obtaining ball flight data includes: operating a launch monitor to collect data generated by at least one golf ball struck by the user in a field of view of the launch monitor, wherein the step of deriving the ball flight data includes adjusting the determined carry distances for an elevation of the launch monitor relative to sea level during the step of operating the launch monitor to provide normalized carry distances, as disclosed by Nipper, to provide a launch monitor for improvements in golf gaming systems. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of a launch monitor for improvements in golf gaming systems.
In regards to claim 11, Wiegers discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
A system for providing information to a user prior to attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course, the system comprising ([0057], “The user interface … may be operable to provide various information to the user”): a launch monitor configured to obtain ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by the user;
a server configured to generate a user data set based upon the ball fight data ([0046], “computing device … may include … other computing devices … for storing data and other information … generated by the device”);
and a rangefinder configured to: determine ([0044], “the electronic device … may be placed on the ground … with the laser beams directed toward the golf ball”) a line of sight distance from a current position of the user and the target, measure one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target ([0074], “a distance between … rest position … and a hazard”), generate user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of site distance and the measured one or more conditions ([0076], “first column … of database … indicates a shot … number; the second column … indicates a … swing characteristic for each of the shots … and the third column … indicates ball flight data for each of the shots”), display the user-specific shot information to the user ([0075], “ball flight data and swing characteristic data may be associated in … different ways, including … displaying the data together on the display”);
wherein the ball flight data generated by the launch monitor is transferred to the server ([0086], “ball flight data may … be transmitted to a server”);
and further wherein the rangefinder ([0044], “the electronic device … may be placed on the ground … with the laser beams directed toward the golf ball”) wirelessly receives the user data set from the server on one of a direct and indirect basis ([0056], “the user interface … may comprise … wireless data transfer elements”).
Nipper discloses
a launch monitor configured to obtain ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by the user ([0015], “FIG. 3 shows … data collected by the launch monitor”);
Wiegers and Nipper are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and golf gaming systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a system for providing information to a user prior to attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course, the system comprising: a server configured to generate a user data set based upon the ball fight data; and a rangefinder configured to: measure one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generate user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of site distance and the measured one or more conditions, display the user-specific shot information to the user; wherein the ball flight data generated by the launch monitor is transferred to the server; and further wherein the rangefinder wirelessly receives the user data set from the server on one of a direct and indirect basis, as disclosed by Wiegers, a launch monitor configured to obtain ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by the user, as disclosed by Nipper, to provide a launch monitor for improvements in golf gaming systems. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of a launch monitor for improvements in golf gaming systems.
Hermansen discloses
a line of sight distance from a current position of the user and the target (page 14, paragraph 3, “The wall height is … used to determine the … line of sight”)
Wiegers and Hermansen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and launching sports balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a system for providing information to a user prior to attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course, the system comprising: a launch monitor configured to obtain ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by the user; a server configured to generate a user data set based upon the ball fight data; and a rangefinder configured to: measure one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generate user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of site distance and the measured one or more conditions, display the user-specific shot information to the user; wherein the ball flight data generated by the launch monitor is transferred to the server; and further wherein the rangefinder wirelessly receives the user data set from the server on one of a direct and indirect basis, as disclosed by Wiegers, and prior to the user attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course: determining a line of sight, a line of sight distance from a current position of the user and the target, as disclosed by Hermansen, to provide wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an audible command, sensors, and voice data for wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods.
In regards to claim 12, Wiegers discloses
wherein the user data set includes elevation-corrected carry distances at a designated elevation above sea level for ([0074], “The ball flight data may … take into account … a distance between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball … a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a fairway; a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a green … a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a flagstick; or a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a hazard.”) each of a plurality of different club types ([0078], “the computing device may associate swing characteristic data, ball flight data, and golf club types”).
In regards to claim 13, Wiegers discloses
wherein the user data set includes an estimated angle-corrected carry distance at positive and negative angles relative to horizontal for each of the elevation-corrected carry distances ([0074], “data may be representative of any aspect of a golf shot, including, but not limited to a distance between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball; an angle between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball”).
In regards to claim 14, Wiegers discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the user-specific shot information includes at least one of: a recommended club;
and an estimated user-specific adjusted distance from the current position to the target as generated by the user data set based upon ([0074], “a distance between … rest position … and a flagstick”) the determined line of sight distance, a determined current elevation of the user ([0074], “The ball flight data may … take into account … location data), and a determined angle of inclination from the current position to the target ([0074], “data may be representative of any aspect of a golf shot, including, but not limited to … an angle between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball”).
Nipper discloses
wherein the user-specific shot information includes at least one of: a recommended club ([0064], “The stored data may be used … to … make recommendations … of a club type”);
Wiegers and Nipper are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and golf gaming systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a system for providing information to a user prior to attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course, the system comprising: a launch monitor configured to obtain ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by the user; a server configured to generate a user data set based upon the ball fight data; and a rangefinder configured to: measure one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generate user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of site distance and the measured one or more conditions, display the user-specific shot information to the user; wherein the ball flight data generated by the launch monitor is transferred to the server; and further wherein the rangefinder wirelessly receives the user data set from the server on one of a direct and indirect basis, and an estimated user-specific adjusted distance from the current position to the target as generated by the user data set based upon, a determined current elevation of the user, and a determined angle of inclination from the current position to the target, as disclosed by Wiegers, wherein the user-specific shot information includes at least one of: a recommended club, as disclosed by Nipper, to provide stored data for improvements in golf gaming systems. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of stored data for improvements in golf gaming systems.
Hermansen discloses
the determined line of sight distance (page 14, paragraph 3, “The wall height is … used to determine the … line of sight”)
Wiegers and Hermansen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and launching sports balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a system for providing information to a user prior to attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course, the system comprising: a launch monitor configured to obtain ball flight data associated with at least one golf ball struck by the user; a server configured to generate a user data set based upon the ball fight data; and a rangefinder configured to: measure one or more conditions that may affect advancement of the golf ball from the current position relative to the target, generate user-specific shot information from the user data set based upon the determined line of site distance and the measured one or more conditions, display the user-specific shot information to the user; wherein the ball flight data generated by the launch monitor is transferred to the server; and further wherein the rangefinder wirelessly receives the user data set from the server on one of a direct and indirect basis, as disclosed by Wiegers, and prior to the user attempting to advance a golf ball relative to a target on a golf course: determining a line of sight, a line of sight distance from a current position of the user and the target, the determined line of sight distance, as disclosed by Hermansen, to provide wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an audible command, sensors, and voice data for wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods.
In regards to claim 15, Wiegers discloses
further comprising: a mobile electronic device assigned to the user and operating an application ([0031], “electronic devices … may be … incorporated with … a … mobile phone”);
wherein the mobile electronic device selectively wirelessly communicates with ([0055], “The user interface … permits a user to operate the device … wirelessly”) the server to receive the user data set ([0086], “ball flight data may … be transmitted to a server”);
and further wherein the mobile electronic device selectively communicates with the rangefinder to transfer the user data set to the rangefinder ([0044], “the electronic device … may be placed on the ground … with the laser beams directed toward the golf ball”).
In regards to claim 16, Wiegers discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
A rangefinder comprising ([0044], “the electronic device … may be placed on the ground … with the laser beams directed toward the golf ball”): a range sensor;
an angle sensor;
at least one elevation-related sensor;
a display assembly ([0032], “embodiment of the electronic device … includes … a display”);
a processor ([0046], “The computing device … may include … processors”);
and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instruction sets, wherein the one or more instruction sets include instructions configured to be executed by the processor to cause the rangefinder to ([0047], “The computer program can be … in computer-readable medium”): range a line of sight distance to a target, apply the ranged line of sight distance to a user data set stored in a memory of the rangefinder to determine user-specific shot information ([0076], “first column … of database … indicates a shot … number; the second column … indicates a … swing characteristic for each of the shots … and the third column … indicates ball flight data for each of the shots”), cause the display assembly to present at least a portion of the user-specific shot information ([0067], “the electronic device … may be used … to … display representations of the swing characteristics and ball flight data”).
Nipper discloses
a range sensor ([0017], “FIG. 5 is … a target field including an impact detection system with numerous sensors” Examiner notes that an impact detection system typically includes a range sensor to detect proximity or collision events.);
an angle sensor ([0017], “FIG. 5 is … a target field including an impact detection system with numerous sensors” Examiner notes that an impact detection system typically includes an angle sensor to measure tilt or orientation changes during impacts.);
at least one elevation-related sensor ([0017], “FIG. 5 is … a target field including an impact detection system with numerous sensors” Examiner notes that an impact detection system typically includes an elevation-related sensor to monitor height changes.);
Wiegers and Nipper are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and golf gaming systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a rangefinder comprising a display assembly; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instruction sets, wherein the one or more instruction sets include instructions configured to be executed by the processor to cause the rangefinder to apply the ranged line of sight distance to a user data set stored in a memory of the rangefinder to determine user-specific shot information, cause the display assembly to present at least a portion of the user-specific shot information, as disclosed by Wiegers, a range sensor; an angle sensor; at least one elevation-related sensor, as disclosed by Nipper, to provide an impact detection system and numerous sensors for improvements in golf gaming systems. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an impact detection system and numerous sensors for improvements in golf gaming systems.
Hermansen discloses
range a line of sight distance to a target
Wiegers and Hermansen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and launching sports balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a rangefinder comprising a display assembly; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instruction sets, wherein the one or more instruction sets include instructions configured to be executed by the processor to cause the rangefinder to apply the ranged line of sight distance to a user data set stored in a memory of the rangefinder to determine user-specific shot information, cause the display assembly to present at least a portion of the user-specific shot information, as disclosed by Wiegers, range a line of sight distance to a target, as disclosed by Hermansen, to provide wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an audible command, sensors, and voice data for wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods.
In regards to claim 17, Wiegers discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the rangefinder is a laser rangefinder ([0044], “the electronic device … may be placed on the ground … with the laser beams directed toward the golf ball”), wherein the range sensor includes a laser source, and further wherein the display assembly includes a view-thru display ([0032], “embodiment of the electronic device … includes … a display”).
Nipper discloses
wherein the range sensor includes a laser source ([0017], “FIG. 5 is … a target field including an impact detection system with numerous sensors” Examiner notes that an impact detection system typically includes a range sensor to detect proximity or collision events.)
Wiegers and Nipper are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and golf gaming systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a rangefinder comprising a display assembly; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instruction sets, wherein the one or more instruction sets include instructions configured to be executed by the processor to cause the rangefinder to apply the ranged line of sight distance to a user data set stored in a memory of the rangefinder to determine user-specific shot information, cause the display assembly to present at least a portion of the user-specific shot information, wherein the rangefinder is a laser rangefinder, and further wherein the display assembly includes a view-thru display, as disclosed by Wiegers, a range sensor; an angle sensor; at least one elevation-related sensor, wherein the range sensor includes a laser source, as disclosed by Nipper, to provide an impact detection system and numerous sensors for improvements in golf gaming systems. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an impact detection system and numerous sensors for improvements in golf gaming systems.
In regards to claim 18, Wiegers does not disclose wherein the user-specific shot information includes a recommended club.
Nipper discloses
wherein the user-specific shot information includes a recommended club ([0064], “The stored data may be used … to … make recommendations … of a club type”).
Wiegers and Nipper are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and golf gaming systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a rangefinder comprising a display assembly; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instruction sets, wherein the one or more instruction sets include instructions configured to be executed by the processor to cause the rangefinder to apply the ranged line of sight distance to a user data set stored in a memory of the rangefinder to determine user-specific shot information, cause the display assembly to present at least a portion of the user-specific shot information, as disclosed by Wiegers, a range sensor; an angle sensor; at least one elevation-related sensor, wherein the user-specific shot information includes a recommended club, as disclosed by Nipper, to provide an impact detection system, numerous sensors, and stored data for improvements in golf gaming systems. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an impact detection system, numerous sensors, and stored data for improvements in golf gaming systems.
In regards to claim 19, Wiegers discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the user-specific shot information includes a user-specific adjusted carry distance from the current position to the target as determined from by the user data set based upon ([0074], “The ball flight data may … take into account … a distance between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball … a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a fairway; a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a green … a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a flagstick; or a distance between the … rest position of the golf ball and a hazard.”)
the determined line of sight distance, a current elevation of the user relative to sea level, and an angle of inclination from the current position to the target ([0074], “data may be representative of any aspect of a golf shot, including, but not limited to a distance between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball; an angle between the … start position and … rest position of the golf ball”).
Hermansen discloses
the determined line of sight distance (page 14, paragraph 3, “The wall height is … used to determine the … line of sight”)
Wiegers and Hermansen are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the fields of analyzing golf swings and launching sports balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a rangefinder comprising a display assembly; a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more instruction sets, wherein the one or more instruction sets include instructions configured to be executed by the processor to cause the rangefinder to apply the ranged line of sight distance to a user data set stored in a memory of the rangefinder to determine user-specific shot information, cause the display assembly to present at least a portion of the user-specific shot information, wherein the user-specific shot information includes a user-specific adjusted carry distance from the current position to the target as determined from by the user data set based upon, a current elevation of the user relative to sea level, and an angle of inclination from the current position to the target, as disclosed by Wiegers, range a line of sight distance to a target, the determined line of sight distance, as disclosed by Hermansen, to provide wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods. One skilled in the art would recognize and value the addition of an audible command, sensors, and voice data for wall height and line of sight for sports ball launch optimization systems and methods.
In regards to claim 20,
Wiegers discloses
wherein the instructions are configured to cause the rangefinder to further: determine the current elevation of the user relative to sea level based upon information from the at least one elevation-related sensor ([0047], “The computer program may comprise an ordered listing of executable instructions for implementing logical functions”);
and determine the angle of inclination from the current position to the target based upon information from the angle sensor ([0036], “computing device … may … be operable to … provide instructions”).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is
(571) 272-4252 and whose email address is lantoine@uspto.gov. The examiner can be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 am-5:30 pm CT. 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 on (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Publication Information
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent
Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the
Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the
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.
/LISA H ANTOINE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights