DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 2 should read –a user can play actual golf--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4, line 2 should read –a user can play actual golf--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 claims “a booth moving controller that controls the booth moving device”. The Examiner assumes that, based on the plain language, each booth has “a booth moving controller that controls the [corresponding] moving device of each of the plurality of screen booths”. Restated, the Examiner assumes that applicant is essentially trying to claim a plurality of booth controllers to correspond with the plurality of booths and their subsequent moving device. If, on the other hand, applicant is claiming a single booth moving controller that controls all of the plurality of booths, this should clearly be denoted in the claims. Either way, the issue needs to be addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shultz (US Pub. No. 2017/0036095 A1) in view of Kwak (KR Pub. No. 10-1337826; as cited in applicant’s IDS) and in further view of Boswell (US Pat. No. 5,031,916).
Regarding claim 1, Shultz discloses a hybrid golf system using a screen booth (Figs. 6 and 7; noting hybrid in that it uses virtual and an actual green) comprising: a field including a green and provided so that a user can play actual golf (Fig. 7); a screen booth provided on one side of the field and equipped with a screen golf device so that a screen golf play can be performed on a virtual golf course (Fig. 6 as seen in Fig. 4, proximate item 63). It is noted that Shultz does not specifically disclose a moving booth and a booth moving device that moves or rotates the screen booth on the field so that the view of the field from inside of the screen booth can be different for each hole of the virtual golf course. However, Kwak discloses a golf screen and that can be raised and lowered to allow a user to “view the field from inside of the screen booth” (see par. [0011] machine translation). In addition, Boswell disclose a hitting tee device (col. 3, lines 65-68) that move or rotates the tee on the field so that the view of the field from on the tee can be different for each hit (Fig. 1, item 15/14 and col. 2, lines 41-47). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Shultz to use a movable up/down screen as taught by Kwak because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a hitting booth with a screen and an artificial green behind it and a hitting both with a movable up/down screen and a real range behind it) according to known methods (using the movable up/down screen in the former hitting booth) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a screen in a hitting booth, the screen being a movable up/down screen so that in the down position, the screen can be hit into, and an in the position, allowing the user to walk directly onto the artificial green behind it). In addition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Shultz and Kwak to make the booth a moving device that moves or rotates the screen booth on the field so that the view of the field from inside of the screen booth can be different for each hole of the virtual golf course as taught and suggested by Boswell because doing so would be use of a known technique (the ability to move a hitting platform relative to a green in an indoor setting) to improve a similar product (an indoor hitting booth positioned around a green) in the same way (the ability to move a hitting platform positioned around the green, the hitting platform being a hitting simulation booth, the movement of the hitting booth allowing for different shot scenarios and lies).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Shultz, Kwak and Boswell disclose a screen shutter on which the virtual golf course and virtual golf simulation images are projected within the screen booth, wherein the screen shutter is provided to open and close the side of the screen booth facing the field, so that the virtual golf play is switched to field play by opening the screen shutter (Kwak: Fig. 1 and par. [0011] of machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Shultz, Kwak and Boswell disclose a booth moving rail is provided under the screen booth (Boswell: Fig. 1, items 15/14 and Fig. 2; noting as per claim 1, it would be obvious to apply this to the “booth” of Shultz), and the screen booth is configured to move along the booth moving rail by the booth moving device (Boswell: col. 3, lines 65-68).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shultz (US Pub. No. 2017/0036095 A1) in view of Boswell (US Pat. No. 5,031,916) and in further view of Takagi (US Pat. No. 5,513,841).
Regarding claim 4, Shultz discloses a hybrid golf system using a screen booth (Figs. 6 and 7; noting hybrid in that it uses virtual and actual green) comprising: a field provided so that a user can play actual golf (Fig. 7); a plurality of screen booths, each provided at a plurality of different positions on the field and each equipped with a screen golf device to play screen golf on a virtual golf course (Fig. 6 and Fig. 4 clearly showing a plurality of items 63 at different positions around the field). It is noted that Shultz does not specifically disclose a moving booth and a booth moving device provided in each of the plurality of screen booths to move or rotate each corresponding screen booth; and a booth moving controller that controls the booth moving device of each of the plurality of screen booths to move or rotate each of the plurality of screen booths to implement a plurality of holes constituting the virtual golf course. However, Shultz makes obvious using a controller “inside” the booth (Fig. 6 and pars. [0107]-[0108]; noting a POSA would readily understand that a “golf simulator” has a “controller”). In addition, Boswell discloses a moving hitting tee (Fig. 1, items 14/15) and a booth moving device provided under a hitting tee to move or rotate the hitting tee (col. 3, lines 65-68); and a hitting tee moving controller that controls the hitting tee to move or rotate the hitting tee to implement a plurality of holes constituting the golf course (col. 3, lines 65-68; noting it is obvious the “controller” can be a human; and noting the holes may change based on tee position and lie). In the alternative, assuming arguendo that applicant is attempting to claim an electronic controller to control movement of the booth, Takagi discloses a similar type device wherein an electronic controller moves a golf surface (col. 9, lines 29-50; see Figs. 1 and 6, item 12). Finally, regarding using a “plurality” of booths that are movable, it has been held that the duplication of parts is not given patentable weight unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Shultz to make the booth use a booth moving device provided in/under the screen booth to move or rotate the screen booth; and a booth moving controller that controls the booth moving device to move or rotate the screen booth to implement a plurality of holes constituting the virtual golf course as taught and suggested by Boswell because doing so would be use of a known technique (using the ability to move a hitting platform relative to a green in an indoor setting) to improve a similar product (the ability to move a hitting platform relative to a green in an indoor setting) to improve a similar product (an indoor hitting booth positioned around a green) in the same way (the ability to move a hitting platform positioned around the green, the hitting platform being a hitting simulation booth, the movement of the hitting booth allowing for different shot scenarios and lies). In addition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Shultz and Boswell to use an electronic controller (in the booth) as taught and suggested by Takagi because doing so would be use of a known technique (using an automated an electronic controller to a golf surface) to improve a similar product (an indoor booth positioned around a green that can be moved by a controller and has a controller within the booth) in the same way (using an electronic and automated controller in the booth to move a golf surface, the golf surface being a simulator booth). Finally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using a booth moving devices for each of the plurality of booths would not produce unexpected results: that is, the booth moving device would move each additional booth much like the first booth.
Regarding claim 5, the combined Shultz, Boswell, and Takagi disclose that the field includes a field area including at least one green corresponding to each of the plurality of screen booths (Shultz: Fig. 4, items 63 and par. [0109]), wherein each of the plurality of screen booths is configured to correspond and connect to each of the field areas (Shultz: Fig. 4, items 63) to move or rotate with respect to corresponding field area (Boswell: col. 3, lines 52-68; noting this is functionally possible given the combined structure; and again noting that ability to more a plurality of booths is a mere duplication of parts).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Shultz, Boswell, and Takagi disclose that a booth moving rail is provided under each of the screen booths (Boswell: Fig. 1, items 14/15 and Fig. 2; noting use of a rail for each booth is obvious given a merely duplication of parts), so that each of the screen booths move along the corresponding booth moving rail by each of the booth moving devices (Boswell: col. 3, lines 52-68), and wherein the booth moving controller controls each booth moving device corresponding to each of the plurality of screen booths so that the position of each of the plurality of screen booths on the corresponding booth moving rail is changed, thereby implementing each of the plurality of holes constituting the virtual golf course (Takagi: col. 9, lines 19-67; noting use of a multiple “controllers” to each corresponding booths would be functionally possible, obvious given that Shultz discloses multiple booths, and again a mere duplication of parts).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
6/17/26
Prosecution Insights