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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/28/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Applicant has listed Office actions on the IDS that were not part of a previously submitted IDS in the parent case and such Office actions were not previously submitted by the Applicant. As such, Applicant has not strictly complied with 37 CFR 1.98.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,128,276. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader than those of ‘276 and thus the claims of ‘276 read on the present claims.
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. The claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, from at least one client computing device or at least one golfing club computing device, performance data from a plurality of rounds for individual golfers of a plurality of golfers, the performance data including at least scoring data for the plurality of golfers; manipulating, based on a plurality of sets of data types and fields, portions of the performance data; performing comparisons between the manipulated portions to identify inconsistencies in the performance data for the individual golfers; determining, based at least in part on the identified inconsistencies, whether the scoring data for the individual golfers satisfies a plurality of rules requiring accurately reported scoring data which identify purposeful influence of handicap data; and sending a notification to one or more of the at least one client computing device or the at least one golfing club computing device indicating at least one of the individual golfers having the determined scoring data that does not satisfy one or more of the rules. The above underlined portions relate to an abstract idea of a mental process as this merely things that can be done in the mind and or data gathering and manipulation of the data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is only applied to a computing technology which is not enough to bring the claims into patent eligibility. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements to the claims are generic computing devices which the Supreme Court in Alice determined was not enough to bring an abstract idea into patent eligibility.
Other independent claims are rejected under a similar analysis. All dependent claims have been considered but only add further abstract ideas to the claims and thus do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0192951 to Rojas.
With regard to claim 13, Rojas discloses a computing system, comprising: at least one computing device processor (0018); and a memory device including instructions that, when executed by the at least one computing device processor, cause the computing system to (0018): receive player data having sufficient scores for calculating a handicap index for the player (0026-0040); manipulate, for a plurality of different data types and fields, the player data to generate a variety of subsets of the player data corresponding to subsets of other players data for different groups of other players, the other players data having sufficient scores for calculating a handicap index for the other players (0026-0040); analyze a plurality of comparisons of the subsets of player data and the sets of other players data, the individual comparisons using at least one of the subsets of player data (0026-0040); generate a plurality of data points respectively for the individual comparisons (0026-0040); determine a likelihood measure for the player based on the data points, the likelihood measure indicating whether the player data includes anomalous scores affecting the handicap index (0026-0040); and determine whether the likelihood measure exceeds a threshold (0026-0040 wherein a handicap is updated for the player).
With regard to claim 15¸Rojas discloses wherein at least part of the player data or the other players data is received from a third party (0026-0031).
With regard to claim 17, Rojas discloses wherein at least one of the player data or the other players data includes at least one unsubmitted score (0038 wherein there are unverified scores and therefore they were not submitted to verify the original user).
With regard to claim 18¸Rojas discloses herein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: generate, based on the likelihood measure exceeding the threshold, an adjusted handicap index for the player to at least partially compensate for the anomalous scores (0040).
With regard to claim 19, Rojas discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: transmit the adjusted handicap index, an electronic client device, associated with organization including the player as a member, having access to the transmitted adjusted handicap index (0040).
With regard to claim 20, Rojas discloses wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: receive geolocation data associated with one or more of the scores for at least one of the player or the other players (0026-0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0122538 to Gowan.
With regard to claim 1, Rojas discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, from at least one client computing device or at least one golfing club computing device, performance data from a plurality of rounds for individual golfers of a plurality of golfers, the performance data including at least scoring data for the plurality of golfers (0026-0031; 0038); manipulating, based on a plurality of sets of data types and fields, portions of the performance data (0026-0031; 0036-0040);
Rojas is not explicitly clear about comparisons with historical data. However, the combination of Rojas and Gowan teaches performing comparisons between the manipulated portions to identify inconsistencies in the performance data for the individual golfers (Roja at 0036-0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056); determining, based at least in part on the identified inconsistencies, whether the scoring data for the individual golfers satisfies a plurality of rules requiring accurately reported scoring data which identify purposeful influence of handicap data (Rojas at 0036-0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056); and sending a notification to one or more of the at least one client computing device or the at least one golfing club computing device indicating at least one of the individual golfers having the determined scoring data that does not satisfy one or more of the rules (Rojas at 0036-0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056).
With regard to claim 2, Rojas discloses receiving, from at least one of a different client computing device or the at least one golfing club computing device, verification of the scoring data from one or more rounds of the plurality of rounds for one or more of the individual golfers, wherein the confirmation is provided by another golfer or by a golfing club associated with at least one of the golfing club computing devices (0024; 0026-0031).
With regard to claim 3, Rojas and Gowan teaches generating, based at least in part on the performance data and the plurality of rules, updated handicap data for the at least one golfer to at least partially compensate for the scoring data that does not satisfy the one or more rules. (Rowan discloses 0036-0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056).
With regard to claim 4, Rojas discloses causing the updated handicap data to be presented on a display of at least one of the client computing device or the golfing club computing devices (0004).
With regard to claim 5, Rojas discloses wherein at least one of the sets of data types and fields includes golfing club memberships associated one or more of the plurality of golfers (0026-0032).
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Rojas and Gowan teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving new performance data from at least one round for one or more individual users of a plurality of users (Rojas at 0026-0031; 0038); receiving, from one or more databases, historic performance data from a plurality of rounds for at least a portion of the plurality of users, the new performance data and the stored historic performance data including at least scoring data for the plurality of users (Rojas at 0036-0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056); manipulating, based on a plurality of sets of data types and fields, portions of both the new performance data and the historic performance data (Rojas at 0026-0031; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056); performing comparisons between the manipulated portions to identify inconsistencies in at least one of the new performance data and the historical performance data for the individual users (Rojas at 0026-0031; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056); determining, based at least in part on the identified inconsistencies, whether the scoring data for at least one of the individual users satisfies a plurality of rules requiring accurately reported scoring data which identify purposeful influence of handicap data (Rojas at 0036-0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056); and sending a notification indicating the individual users having the determined scoring data that does not satisfy one or more of the rules (Rojas at 0036-0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056).
With regard to claim 8¸Rojas discloses that at least one of the sets of data types and fields includes one or more specified time periods (0033).
With regard to claim 9, Rojas discloses wherein at least one of the new performance data or the historic performance data includes a tournament finishing position for one or more of the plurality of users (0033).
With regard to claim 10, Rojas and Gowan teaches generating, based at least in part on the plurality of rules and at least one of the new performance data and the historical performance data, updated handicap data for the at least one user to at least partially compensate for the scoring data that does not satisfy the one or more rules (Rojas at 0036; 0040; Gowan at 0039; 0047; 0056).
With regard to claim 11, Gowan teaches wherein at least one or more rules of the plurality of rules are weighted differently.
With regard to claim 12, Rojas discloses identifying at least one of a time or a time period where a new round score is expected to be submitted for at least one of the plurality of users; and verifying that the new round score was submitted (0033 wherein it discusses a tournament).
With regard to claim 14, Gowan teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the computing system to: apply weights to the individual data points of the plurality of data points, at least one of the individual data points being weighted differently than one or more other data points; and determine the likelihood measure for the player based at least partially according to the weights of the data points (0041-0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Gowan with the disclosure of Rojas in order to more accurately reflect a user’s handicap and when it should be updated as far as how it relates to other courses and past history of the user.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas in view of Gowan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0030682 to Rottman.
With regard to claim 6, Rojas does not appear to explicitly disclose wagering. However, such is taught by Rottman (0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Rottman with the disclosure of Rojas in order to provide for an additional competitive and entertaining time to users by allowing them to stake a wager on the game.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas in view of Rottman.
With regard to claim 16, Rojas does not appear to explicitly disclose wagering. However, such is taught by Rottman (0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the teachings of Rottman with the disclosure of Rojas in order to provide for an additional competitive and entertaining time to users by allowing them to stake a wager on the game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay Liddle whose telephone number is (571)270-1226. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights