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(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024, 01/13/2025, 07/15/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The use of the terms “Wi-Fi,” “Bluetooth,” “WiMax,” “GSM,” and “LTE,” which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6, 10, 13, 15, 18, 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, the phrase “distance between device’s geographic location” should be “distance between the device’s geographic location”
In Claim 10, the phrase “wherein shot information” should be “wherein the shot information”
In Claim 13, the phrase “distance between device’s geographic location” should be “distance between the device’s geographic location”
In Claim 15, line 7, “elevation compensating” should be hyphenated (“elevation-compensating”)
In Claim 18, the phrase “distance between device’s geographic location” should be “distance between the device’s geographic location”
In Claim 20, line 6, “elevation compensating” should be hyphenated (“elevation-compensating”)
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, and 16 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1-3, 11, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,245. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated the subject matter claimed in the patent.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of the patent recites a controller, a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a pressure sensor; a temperature sensor in communication with the controller; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon which, when executed by the controller, causes the controller to: determine the device’s current geographic location based on current coordinates from the GPS receiver; … obtain a reference location based on GPS coordinates and a reference elevation from a database; … determine the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values received from the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor; compare the device’s pressure elevation to the reference elevation; and determine the elevation offset factor based on the difference between the device’s pressure elevation and the reference elevation when the device’s location matches the reference location. Therefore, instant Claim 1 is anticipated by Claim 1 of the patent. Instant Claims 11 and 16 are similarly anticipated by Claims 11 and 16, respectively, of the patent.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 of the patent recites that the device is used to determine location and elevation information on a golf course.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 of the patent recites wherein the reference location is a tee box or a green.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11-12, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101764831 B1) in view of Tsubata (US 2015/0168438).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches:
A device for determining elevations, the device comprising:
a controller and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon ([0024]: “hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software”) which, when executed by the controller, causes the controller to:
determine a first geographic location of the device ([0026]: “the location information measuring unit (100) can receive a GPS signal to obtain the latitude and longitude coordinates of the user’s current location”);
obtain a reference elevation of the first geographic location ([0027]: “The DB storage unit (200) stores location information and elevation information”; [0047]: “altitude information of the tee box stored in advance in the DB storage unit (200)”);
determine the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure … values at the first geographic location ([0030]: “The pressure sensor unit (300) measures the atmospheric pressure at the current location.”; [0047]: “The altitude calculation unit (520) calculates altitude information based on atmospheric pressure measured by the pressure sensor unit (300).”);
compare the device’s pressure elevation to the reference elevation ([0048]: “The altitude correction value calculation unit (530) calculates an altitude correction value by comparing the altitude information of the tee box stored in the DB storage unit (200) … with the altitude information calculated by the altitude calculation unit (520)”); and
determine an elevation offset factor based on the difference between the device’s pressure elevation and the reference elevation ([0049]: “the altitude correction value calculation unit (530) can calculate the altitude correction value by subtracting the altitude value at the corresponding location stored in the DB storage unit (200) from the altitude value calculated by the altitude calculation unit (520).”).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values.
However, Tsubata is in the field of altitude determination (Tsubata [Abstract]) and teaches:
determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values (Tsubata [0051]: “The altitude measurement unit 108 converts an air pressure P indicated by the inputted air pressure signal to an altitude ‘h’”; [0052]: “T represents the temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and determine the device’s pressure elevation based on both pressure and temperature values, as taught by Tsubata, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Tsubata’s known altitude determination technique to Lee’s altitude determination device yields the predictable result of determining the altitude based on both pressure and temperature values, which would improve the altitude estimate by accounting for an additional environmental factor.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions embodied thereon wherein the instructions ([0024]: “hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software”), when executed by a controller of a device, causes the controller to:
determine a first geographic location of the device ([0026]: “the location information measuring unit (100) can receive a GPS signal to obtain the latitude and longitude coordinates of the user’s current location”);
obtain a reference elevation of the first geographic location ([0027]: “The DB storage unit (200) stores location information and elevation information”; [0047]: “altitude information of the tee box stored in advance in the DB storage unit (200)”);
determine the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure … values at the first geographic location ([0030]: “The pressure sensor unit (300) measures the atmospheric pressure at the current location.”; [0047]: “The altitude calculation unit (520) calculates altitude information based on atmospheric pressure measured by the pressure sensor unit (300).”);
compare the device’s pressure elevation to the reference elevation ([0048]: “The altitude correction value calculation unit (530) calculates an altitude correction value by comparing the altitude information of the tee box stored in the DB storage unit (200) … with the altitude information calculated by the altitude calculation unit (520)”); and
determine an elevation offset factor based on the difference between the device’s pressure elevation and the reference elevation ([0049]: “the altitude correction value calculation unit (530) can calculate the altitude correction value by subtracting the altitude value at the corresponding location stored in the DB storage unit (200) from the altitude value calculated by the altitude calculation unit (520).”).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values.
However, Tsubata is in the field of altitude determination (Tsubata [Abstract]) and teaches:
determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values (Tsubata [0051]: “The altitude measurement unit 108 converts an air pressure P indicated by the inputted air pressure signal to an altitude ‘h’”; [0052]: “T represents the temperature”).
The rationale to modify Lee with the teachings of Tsubata persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches:
A method for determining elevations executed by a controller on a device ([0024]: “hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software”), the method comprising the controller
determining a first geographic location of the device ([0026]: “the location information measuring unit (100) can receive a GPS signal to obtain the latitude and longitude coordinates of the user’s current location”);
obtaining a reference elevation of the first geographic location ([0027]: “The DB storage unit (200) stores location information and elevation information”; [0047]: “altitude information of the tee box stored in advance in the DB storage unit (200)”);
determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure … values at the first geographic location ([0030]: “The pressure sensor unit (300) measures the atmospheric pressure at the current location.”; [0047]: “The altitude calculation unit (520) calculates altitude information based on atmospheric pressure measured by the pressure sensor unit (300).”);
comparing the device’s pressure elevation to the reference elevation ([0048]: “The altitude correction value calculation unit (530) calculates an altitude correction value by comparing the altitude information of the tee box stored in the DB storage unit (200) … with the altitude information calculated by the altitude calculation unit (520)”); and
determining an elevation offset factor based on the difference between the device’s pressure elevation and the reference elevation ([0049]: “the altitude correction value calculation unit (530) can calculate the altitude correction value by subtracting the altitude value at the corresponding location stored in the DB storage unit (200) from the altitude value calculated by the altitude calculation unit (520).”).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values.
However, Tsubata is in the field of altitude determination (Tsubata [Abstract]) and teaches:
determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values (Tsubata [0051]: “The altitude measurement unit 108 converts an air pressure P indicated by the inputted air pressure signal to an altitude ‘h’”; [0052]: “T represents the temperature”).
The rationale to modify Lee with the teachings of Tsubata persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee as modified teaches: that the device is used to determine location and elevation information on a golf course ([0028]: “the DB storage unit (200) can store location information and elevation information of tee boxes and greens for multiple holes of a golf course”).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee as modified teaches: wherein the first geographic location is at a tee box or a green ([0047]: “When a user is located at a place where a tee box is located”).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 17, Lee as modified teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to
determine the device’s geographic location at a second geographic location different from the first geographic location ([0052]: “the user’s current location”);
determine the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure … values at the second geographic location ([0052]: “calculate the altitude information of the user’s current location using atmospheric pressure information”); and
apply the elevation offset factor to the pressure elevation to provide a corrected elevation at the second geographic location ([0052]: “the altitude difference calculation unit (540) can calculate the altitude difference from the user’s current location to the green by subtracting the altitude value of the green stored in the DB storage unit (200) and the altitude correction value calculated by the altitude correction value calculation unit (530) from the calculated altitude value.”).
Lee does not explicitly teach – but Tsubata teaches: determining the device’s pressure elevation based on pressure and temperature values (Tsubata [0051]: “The altitude measurement unit 108 converts an air pressure P indicated by the inputted air pressure signal to an altitude ‘h’”; [0052]: “T represents the temperature”).
The rationale to modify Lee with the teachings of Tsubata persists from Claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-8, 13-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101764831 B1) in view of Tsubata (US 2015/0168438), as applied to Claims 4, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Lee ‘190 (US 2020/0363190).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the second geographic location is at a current lie of a golf ball on a golf course.
However, Lee ‘190 is in the field of golf attack distance measurement (Lee ‘190 [Abstract]) and teaches: determining a height from a current lie of a golf ball to a measuring apparatus (Lee ‘109 [0105]: “h02 indicates a height from a golf ball 10 to the distance measuring apparatus 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use the device at a current lie of a golf ball with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the device at a current lie of a golf ball would be beneficial for improving the accuracy and relevance of the altitude measurements.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 18, Lee as modified teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to
obtain a landmark location and elevation ([0027]: “The DB storage unit (200) stores location information and elevation information of at least one teebox and location information and elevation information of the green”);
determine a geographic distance between device’s geographic location and the landmark’s location ([0054]: “The distance calculation unit (550) calculates the distance from the user’s location to the green based on the user’s location information and the green’s location information”);
determine a difference between the device’s corrected elevation and the landmark’s elevation ([0052]: “The elevation difference calculation unit (540) calculates the elevation difference from the current user’s location to the green using the elevation correction value calculated by the elevation correction value calculation unit (530).”).
Lee further teaches outputting the altitude difference and distance ([0055]), but does not explicitly teach determining an elevation-corrected distance from the device’s location and corrected elevation to the landmark’s location and elevation.
However, Lee ‘190 teaches: determining an elevation-corrected distance from the device’s location and corrected elevation to the landmark’s location and elevation (Lee ‘190 [0104]: “When the height h01 is calculated, the attack distance X0 may be calculated using Equation 2 below.”; [0105]: “X0 indicates the attack distance, L0 indicates a horizontal distance from the distance measuring apparatus 100 to the target 200, and h02 indicates a height from a golf ball 10 to the distance measuring apparatus 100.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and determine an elevation-corrected distance from the device’s location and corrected elevation to the landmark’s location and elevation, as taught by Lee ‘190, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Lee ‘190’s attack distance calculation technique to Lee’s altitude and distance determination device yields the predictable result of determining the distance using the corrected elevation to determine an accurate attack distance.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee as modified teaches: wherein the landmark is green location information that can be used to calculate the distance from the user’s location to the green ([0014]), but does not explicitly teach the claimed landmarks.
However, Lee ‘190 teaches: wherein the landmark is selected from the group consisting of green fronts, green centers, backs of greens, flagsticks, pin positions, cups, green perimeters, hazards, bunkers, traps, water features, roughs, fairway boundaries and cart paths (Lee ‘190 [0064]: “the memory 160 stores data (for example, the data includes course map information about a tee box, a fairway, a hazard, a bunker, a rough, a green, a hole of a golf course, and the like, but is not limited thereto) supporting various functions of the distance measuring apparatus 100.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use a tee box, a fairway, a hazard, a bunker, a rough, a green, or a hole as the landmark, as taught by Lee ‘190, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using a known golf course landmark to determine the elevation-corrected distance is beneficial for improving the accuracy of the distance measurement.
Regarding Claims 8, 14, and 19, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Lee ‘190 teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to
determine shot information comprising a slope-compensated distance based on the landmark’s location and elevation and the device’s location and elevation at the second geographic location (Lee ‘190 [0104]: “When the height h01 is calculated, the attack distance X0 may be calculated using Equation 2 below.”; [0105]: “X0 indicates the attack distance, L0 indicates a horizontal distance from the distance measuring apparatus 100 to the target 200, and h02 indicates a height from a golf ball 10 to the distance measuring apparatus 100.”) applied to a ballistic trajectory from the device’s location and elevation toward the landmark (Lee ‘190 [0108]: “the attack distance X0 and the landing angle a02 may be expressed as a function as in Equation 4, and a type of the function is not limited to a linear function, a secondary function, and the like.”); and
convert the shot information to a signal perceptible to a user (Lee ‘190 [0011]: “calculate an attack distance by using a relationship between the height of the target, a landing angle, and the attack distance, and to output the attack distance to at least one of the display unit and the sound output unit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and determine shot information comprising a slope-compensated distance applied to a ballistic trajectory, and to output the shot information, as taught by Lee ‘190, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Lee ‘190’s attack distance calculation technique to Lee’s altitude and distance determination device yields the predictable result of determining an attack distance with improved accuracy and outputting the attack distance to a user.
Claim(s) 9-10, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101764831 B1) in view of Tsubata (US 2015/0168438) and Lee ‘190 (US 2020/0363190), as applied to Claims 8, 14, and 19 above, and further in view of Nyhart (US 2019/0094343).
Regarding Claims 9, 15, and 20, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the shot information further comprises an elevation-compensating factor to the slope-compensated distance based on the effect of the device’s elevation on ballistic flight of a golf ball.
However, Nyhart is in the field of golf rangefinders (Nyhart [Abstract]) and teaches: wherein the shot information further comprises an elevation-compensating factor to the slope-compensated distance based on the effect of the device’s elevation on ballistic flight of a golf ball (Nyhart [0002]: “environmental conditions can affect the golf ball path, such as wind direction and strength, altitude, and temperature”; [0034]: “a calculated “play as” distance that is determined based on factors such as inclination, altitude, pressure, and/or temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and apply an elevation-compensating factor to the slope-compensated distance based on the effect of the device’s elevation on ballistic flight of a golf ball, as taught by Nyhart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Nyhart’s environmental condition compensation technique to Lee’s altitude and distance determination device yields the predictable result of determining the slope-compensated distance with improved accuracy.
Regarding Claims 10, 15, and 20, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Nyhart teaches: wherein shot information further comprises a temperature-compensating factor to the slope-compensated distance based on the effect of a current temperature on ballistic flight of a golf ball (Nyhart [0034]: “temperature”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and apply a temperature-compensating factor to the slope-compensated distance, as taught by Nyhart, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Nyhart’s temperature compensation technique to Lee’s altitude and distance determination device yields the predictable result of determining the slope-compensated distance with improved accuracy.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least Claims, 1, 11, and 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights