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 . This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 12/3/25. Claim 1 is amended, claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1-15, 21 and 22 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2024/0325847 A1 to Peterson et al. (hereinafter “Peterson”) in view of US Patent No. 6,027,417 to Zoretic et al. (hereinafter “Zoretic”).
Concerning claim 1, Peterson discloses a method for generating shot strategies in a golf game, the method comprising: as implemented by computer program instructions executed by one or more computer processors: receiving or generating a golf performance prediction of a golf hole, wherein the GPP comprises a positional area comprising a plurality of positions, wherein each of the plurality of area positions has a value, and wherein each of the plurality of positions is associated with a geospatial location within a layout of the golf hole (paragraphs [0043]-[0045]);
selecting a preferred shot strategy by a shot strategy selection process (paragraphs [0046], [0047]) comprising:
(a) receiving a ball location within the layout of the golf hole (paragraphs [0049]- [0051]);
(b) determining a landing location associated with a shot vector and the ball location (paragraphs [0069]- [0077]);
(c) determining a golf performance value based at least on the area value associated with the landing location from the GPP area (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0128], [0129]);
(d) determining a carry risk vector associated with the shot vector, wherein the carry risk vector corresponds to a risk of a ball path associated with the shot vector intersecting an obstacle along the ball path (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]);
(e) modifying the golf performance value based at least in part on the carry risk vector to generate a modified golf performance value (paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082]);
(f) repeating steps (a) through (e) for a plurality of shot vectors (paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082]); and
(g) selecting the shot vector of the plurality of shot vectors that satisfies a preferred shot selection criterion as at least a portion of the preferred shot strategy (paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082]); and
causing display of the preferred shot strategy in a user interface of a user device; wherein the preferred shot strategy comprises one or more shots, corresponding to one or more shot vectors, for a golfer to advance a golf ball from the ball location to a pin cup location (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Peterson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Zoretic discloses receiving or generating a golf performance prediction grid (GPP grid) of a golf hole, wherein the GPP grid comprises a positional grid comprising a plurality of grid positions, wherein each of the plurality of grid positions has a grid value, wherein the grid value is determined based on a distance between a grid position of the plurality of grid positions associated with the grid value and a pin cup and a lie adjustment, and wherein each of the plurality of grid positions is associated with a geospatial location within a layout of the golf hole (Figs. 2-4; column 4, line 50- column 5, line 21; column 5, line 66-column 6, line 42; column 6 line 61-column 7, line 28; column 9, lines 39-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the grid in order to calculate the golf performance as disclosed by Zoretic in the system of Peterson in order to increase accuracy in the performance calculations.
Concerning claim 2, Peterson discloses wherein the preferred shot selection criterion is a lowest modified golf performance value (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 3, Peterson discloses wherein the shot strategy selection process further comprises: determining a shot roll and a roll risk vector associated with the shot vector, wherein the roll risk vector has a magnitude corresponding to a risk of the shot roll encountering a water feature; and modifying the golf performance value based at least in part on the roll risk vector to generate the modified golf performance value (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 4, Peterson discloses wherein the plurality of shot vectors comprises a shot sequence associated with a plurality of sequential shot vectors, wherein each ball location of each of the plurality of sequential shot vectors is a shot total location of a previous shot vector, and wherein the shot total location is a grid position where the golf ball comes to rest after traversing a distance corresponding to a shot carry and a shot roll (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 5, Peterson discloses wherein the shot strategy selection process comprises aggregating modified golf performance values of each shot vector in the shot sequence to generate a shot sequence score (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 6, Peterson discloses wherein the shot strategy selection process comprises selecting the shot sequence that satisfies the preferred shot selection criterion as at least a portion of the preferred shot strategy (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 7, Peterson discloses wherein selecting the shot sequence comprises selecting the shot sequence associated with the shot sequence score having a minimum value (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 8, Peterson discloses wherein the shot strategy selection process further comprises: determining an averaged area value associated with the landing location or a shot total location, wherein the averaged area value is determined by averaging area values within a shot dispersion area surrounding the landing location; and determining the area value at the ball location (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]). Peterson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Zoretic discloses receiving or generating a golf performance prediction grid (GPP grid) of a golf hole, wherein the GPP grid comprises a positional grid comprising a plurality of grid positions, wherein each of the plurality of grid positions has a grid value, and wherein each of the plurality of grid positions is associated with a geospatial location within a layout of the golf hole (Figs. 2-4; column 4, line 50- column 5, line 21; column 5, line 66-column 6, line 42; column 6 line 61-column 7, line 28; column 9, lines 39-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the grid in order to calculate the golf performance as disclosed by Zoretic in the system of Peterson in order to increase accuracy in the performance calculations.
Concerning claim 9, Peterson discloses wherein determining the golf performance value is additionally based on the averaged area value and the area value at the ball location. Peterson lacks specifically disclosing, however, Zoretic discloses receiving or generating a golf performance prediction grid (GPP grid) of a golf hole, wherein the GPP grid comprises a positional grid comprising a plurality of grid positions, wherein each of the plurality of grid positions has a grid value, and wherein each of the plurality of grid positions is associated with a geospatial location within a layout of the golf hole (Figs. 2-4; column 4, line 50- column 5, line 21; column 5, line 66-column 6, line 42; column 6 line 61-column 7, line 28; column 9, lines 39-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the grid in order to calculate the golf performance as disclosed by Zoretic in the system of Peterson in order to increase accuracy in the performance calculations.
Concerning claim 10, Peterson discloses further comprising: receiving shot dispersion data associated with the golfer and at least one golf club; and selecting at least one of the plurality of shot vectors by searching for shot vectors within an analysis region located within a range of shot distances from the ball location, wherein the range of shot distances is derived from the shot dispersion data (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 11, Peterson discloses wherein the shot dispersion data comprises a list of clubs, a shot carry, a shot roll, a shot total, and dimensions of a shot dispersion area (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 12, Peterson discloses wherein receiving the shot dispersion data comprises prompting a predictive model with golfer data and receiving a result from the predictive model, wherein the predictive model is sequentially trained using a plurality of machine learning models to improve a predictive accuracy of prior machine learning models through training sequential machine learning models to predict each prior machine learning model's incorrect predictions (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 13, Peterson discloses wherein the shot dispersion data comprises: an identifier for the at least one golf club; a shot carry corresponding to a horizontal distance the golf ball travels through air when the golf ball is hit with the at least one golf club; a shot roll corresponding to a distance the golf ball travels on ground when the golf ball is hit with the at least one golf club; a shot total comprising the shot carry and the shot roll; a shot shape value corresponding to a curvature of a golf shot; and a shot dispersion area comprising a length, a width, and an angle of rotation, wherein the shot dispersion area corresponds to a probabilistic region in which the golf ball contacts the ground after being struck by the at least one golf club (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 14, Peterson discloses wherein receiving the shot dispersion data comprises receiving data entered via user interaction with a manual dispersion data entry interface (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claim 15, Peterson discloses wherein the plurality of shot vectors are generated from a data set comprising: a plurality of target shot distances derived from shot dispersion data for the golfer and the layout of the golf hole; a plurality of target landing locations derived from shot dispersion areas associated with the plurality of target shot distances; and environmental factors corresponding to the golf hole (Fig. 13A, paragraphs [0069]- [0077], [0081], [0082], [0128], [0129]).
Concerning claims 21 and 22, see the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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 at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715