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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 4 recite “wherein the GPS module configured to and executing code to,” but should probably recite “wherein the GPS module being configured to and executing code to.”
Claim 4 recites “use the current course map when the determining the current ball location and the desired ball ending location” but should read: “use the current course map when determining the current ball location and the desired ball ending location."
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 7-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “if the chance of encountering a hazard on the desired ball path is high.” The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “a recommended club that is likely to result in the desired ball path.” The term “likely” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 7 or claim 17.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "The method of claim 5, further comprising" without proper antecedent basis for the recited “method”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 16 or in claims 1 and 5, from which claim 16 depends.
It is reasonably clear that Applicant intended for claim 16 to recite the “method of claim 15” based on the overall structure of the claims. For examination purposes, claim 16 has been interpreted to be dependent on claim 15 and not dependent on claim 5.
Claims 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system and method. Hence, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of analyzing features of a desired ball ending location, comparing them to a database of swings and clubs with resultant ball trajectories captured by a launch monitor and suggesting a club based on the analysis. The claim features amount to an abstract idea in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Certain of the dependent claims also require mathematical concepts, such as the use of least squares analysis in claims 8 and 18.
The claims additionally require various computer-implemented elements, such as a computer to execute a program stored in a recording medium, various functionally-claimed modules, and the use of a GPS or other location elements and sensor readings. The specification explains that the virtual caddy may be implemented using a generic smartphone. Spec. ¶ 0015.
These limitations simply describe the process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because the computer-based features outlined above are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed invention does not provide a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The computer-based features outlined above are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
The specification admits that the computer-implemented functions require only generic and conventional components. For instance, the disclosure states that the virtual caddy may be implemented using a generic smartphone, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional device. Spec. ¶ 0022. This element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment (e.g., a GPS and user interface). Moreover, the recitation of a launch monitor is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as evidenced by Rauchholz (below) and by the lack of details provided in the specification. While readings are taken from the launch monitor, there is no indication that the claimed invention improves the functioning of the launch monitor. Instead, it is simply used in its normal way and the data is provided to the claimed caddy module. As such, the claimed invention is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The dependent claims primarily focus on adjusting certain quantities and updating the data or predictions displayed as the outcome of such. The dependent claims therefore merely automate the abstract idea with a computerized device rather than implement them manually by a person. Courts have determined that such bare automation is not sufficient to save a claim from abstraction.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0161782 to Schneider (hereinafter Schneider) in view of US 2013/0184091 to Rauchholz et al. (hereinafter Rauchholz).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Schneider teaches a system and method for providing a virtual caddy, the system comprising a caddy module (¶ 0032 discloses a smart eyewear system for assisting a golfer and ¶ 0033 discloses the system comprising a processor, considered the caddy module); and
a method and the caddy module configured to:
receive a current ball location (¶ 0035 discloses the processor receiving information to keep track of a golf ball once a user starts playing and moving the ball around a golf course. Further, ¶ 0038 discloses a wireless module with a GPS in communication with the processor) and a desired ball ending location (¶ 0043 discloses the processor receiving, by way of a data storage in communication with the wireless module, a desired ball ending location. For example, Fig. 4 shows the processor displaying a green location, Label 242, and instructing a user that it is 135 yards away);
access a database of swings with data comprising information about a plurality of clubs and swings (¶ 0037 discloses a data storage, in communication with the processor, storing historic golf club swing data. ¶ 0070 discloses historic information stored in the data storage and the club type associated with each shot);
analyze the database of swings to determine a suggested club (¶ 0037 discloses using the data storage storing historic golf club swing data to facilitate golf club recommendation).
Schneider lacks in explicitly teaching wherein resultant ball trajectories captured by a launch monitor are stored in the database and accessed to determine a suggested club. In a related disclosure, Rauchholz teaches a launch monitor that captures ball flight path (¶¶ 0071-0072 disclose ball launch angle, ball flight path, distance, and club type as input parameters to a flight optimization computer). Rauchholz also teaches using flight path data to generate golf equipment selections (see ¶ 0089). Because the device of Schneider is already capable of measuring swing path through its cameras (see ¶ 0066) and tracking a ball through its flight (see ¶ 0063), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schneider’s system to store flight path data for use in golf club selection. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that a user could have more detailed information for club selection, such as selecting a club that gives a flight path a specific curvature to avoid obstacles.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Schneider teaches further comprising a GPS module, the GPS module configured to and executing code to: determine the current ball location based on GPS data (¶ 0064 discloses that the wireless module, located on the eyewear, can transmit the location of the golf ball through a comparison of its own location and an estimated landing spot after tracking a shot).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Schneider teaches wherein the GPS module is configured to and executing code to determine the desired ball ending location based on the GPS data (the desired ball ending location necessarily depends on and is based on the location of the eyewear, determined by the GPS module).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Schneider teaches wherein the GPS module is configured to and executing code to:
access a golf course database, the golf course database having a map for a golf course (¶ 0043 discloses GPS information associated with a golf course stored in the data storage; Fig. 4 shows said GPS information represented visually);
retrieve a current course map based on the GPS data (¶ 0038 discloses the wireless module programmed to receive location information such as GPS data on a particular golf course or GPS data for the user's current location); and
use the current course map when determining the current ball location (¶ 0063 discloses comparing stored GPS data against a ball’s projected landing spot to determine ball location) and the desired ball ending location (¶ 0055 discloses the processor using GPS data associated with the golf course and stored information in the storage to locate important areas on a course, and the system recommending a desired location based on said information, for example, landing a golf ball between two bunkers, to make an approach to the green easier).
Schneider lacks an explicit teaching of the system wherein: the golf course database has a plurality of maps for golf courses. Regardless, the system of Schneider is capable of identifying the course it is on, and GPS location data associated with the course can either be stored locally in the data storage or in a remote server (¶ 0068). Therefore, the device of Schneider is inherently capable of providing maps for multiple golf courses. Under an alternate interpretation, even if the reference is not inherently capable of providing multiple maps for multiple golf courses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosed remote server to store multiple maps for golf courses. It would have been obvious to make this modification so that many users, across many different golf courses, could use the system.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Schneider teaches wherein the caddy module is configured to and executing code to:
receive a pin location indication from a user (¶ 0072 discloses a “hero shot” mode, initiated when a user indicates a pinpoint location); and
adjust the desired ball ending location based on the pin location (¶ 0073 discloses in the “hero mode” the user can vocally instruct the processor of his/her plan and the processor will accordingly switch plans).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Schneider teaches wherein the caddy module determines a desired ball path based on the current ball location and the desired ball ending location (¶ 0049 discloses the processor generating a recommended club swing path based on desired ball flight pattern, and a desired flight pattern depends on the location of the eyewear).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Schneider lacks but Rauchholz teaches wherein a desired ball path is compared to the swings associated with a plurality of clubs and resultant ball trajectories, and a club that is likely to result in the desired ball path is recommended. Specifically, Rauchholz discloses ball launch angle, ball flight path, distance, and club type as input parameters to a flight optimization system (¶¶ 0071-0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have stored data according to the input parameters taught by Rauchholz in the storage of the system of Schneider for use in recommending a club type. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that a user could have more informed club recommendation with regards to flight path.
Claims 8 and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider and Rauchholz, and further in view of US 2021/0113892 to Erberle et al. (hereinafter Erberle).
The combination of Schneider and Rauchholz teaches the system and method of claim 7 but lacks an explicit teaching wherein the caddy module uses a least squares analysis to select the recommended club. However, in a related disclosure, Erberle teaches a smart golf ball with embedded electronics that measures velocity. Specifically, a linear regression is run on X, Y, Z components of velocity readings with a least-squares fitting, resulting in a linear equation to predict how speed changes over time (¶0044). Erberle teaches that the velocity models are the basis upon which displacement, hangtime, and exit velocity are calculated. Because the ball speed measurements taken in both the systems of Scheider and Rauchholz already require velocity measurements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Schneider and Rauchholz with the linear modeling with least squares fitting of velocity as taught by Erberle. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that shot analytics could be efficiently modeled, as beneficially taught by Erbele.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheider, Rauchholz, and Erberle, further in view of US 2015/0126308 to Penn et al. (hereinafter Penn).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 19-20, Schneider teaches using a course map to determine whether there are hazards in the desired ball path and selecting a club accordingly (substantially discussed above).
The combination of Schneider, Rauchholz, and Erberle lacks an explicit teaching wherein the system determines a chance of encountering a hazard on the desired ball path; and wherein if the chance of encountering a hazard on the desired ball path exceeds a predetermined threshold, the caddy module selects an alternative ball path and modifies the recommended club.
However, Penn teaches a software application that identifies a preferred golf club type by iterating until a golf club type is identified that has a suitably low chance of resulting in a golf ball landing in a hazard (¶ 0112). Penn teaches that the software allows a golfer to make a more informed decision about a particular golf shot, as the golfer will know the probability of success (¶ 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Schneider, Rauchholz, and Erberle with the software application of Penn, so that the system assigns a likelihood of encountering a hazard given a ball path and golf club, and if that likelihood exceeds the determined threshold, it suggests a new golf club. Upon the new club selection, a new path would necessarily be generated. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that the caddy system could make a probabilistic determination of success given the presence of hazards as taught by Penn, and a user could make a decision based on the risk and benefit of attempting a shot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited. For instance, US 12,239,896 to Hughes, IV teaches an electronic golf guidebook incorporating golf-related data specific to a selected golf course using sensor information. US 11,393,358 to Doherty et al. teaches a coaching aid for golf that provides statistical analytics for coaching. US 2004/0147329 to Meadows et al. teaches a personal golfing assistant and method for graphically displaying golf related information, including the use of data for a specific course and a real time GPS to adjust measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights