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 .
Priority
Application 19/094,338 was filed on March 28, 2025. It is a Continuation of Application 17/322,069 filed on May 17, 2021, which claims priority to Provisional Application 63/025,208, filed on May 15, 2020.
Status of the Claims
A Preliminary Amendment was filed on June 17, 2025 in which claims 1-18 were cancelled and claims 19-37 were added.
Claim Objections
Claims 22, 26, and 35-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “receiving in real-time at the backend system, at least one of: a current hole score and an approach shot selection sent from the customer device over the communications network, at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection input by a user on the score tracking interface of the application running on the customer device” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains typographical/grammatical errors. As such, the claim is interpreted to read, “receiving in real-time at the backend system, at least one of: a current hole score and an approach shot selection sent from the customer device over the communications network, wherein at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection are input by a user on the score tracking interface of the application running on the customer device” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites “transmit the first hole number to a backend system over a communications network in real-time” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains typographical/grammatical errors. Examiner notes that the antecedent basis for this limitation appears to be “a backend system” as recited in claim 25 (similar to claim 20, which appears to have an identical limitation that derives antecedent basis from claim 19). As such, the claim is interpreted to read, “transmit the first hole number to the backend system over a communications network in real-time” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites “and transmit the search criteria to the backend system. wherein the backend system is further configured to …” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains typographical/grammatical errors. As such, the claim is interpreted to read, “and transmit the search criteria to the backend system, wherein the backend system is further configured to …” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 36 and 37 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 35.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 26 recite, “wherein the second hole number replaces the first hole number in the database” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that “no new matter has been added as a result of these amendments, but does not refer to any particular section of the specification for support (see Remarks, p. 8). Applicant’s specification teaches: storing “score tracking parameters” including a hole number in a database [0013]; and score tracking parameters, including the current hole, are sent to the backend system for storage [0295]. Examiner notes that, applicant’s specification makes no reference to “replacing” a hole number in a database and replacing data seems to run contrary to the specification, which teaches tracking data for multiple holes over a round of golf (see at least [0294]). There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 21 and 26 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 19-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 19 recites, receiving a first hole number sent from a customer, the first hole number input by a user;
recording the first hole number;
tracking a physical location of the user according to the first hole number; and
adjusting a subsequent tee time based on the physical location of the user.
Independent claim 25 recites, provide score tracking [to] the customer;
receive a first hole number input by a user; and
transmit the first hole number;
receive the first hole number from the customer;
record the first hole number;
track a physical location of the user according to the first hole number; and
adjust a subsequent tee time based on the physical location of the user.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, performing golf score tracking and tee time adjustment for a customer is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to receive and record a hole number from a customer, track the physical location of a customer using the hole number, and adjust a tee time based on the location of the customer can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 19 and 25 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 19 and 25 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a computer (claim 19), real-time tracking and processing (claims 19 and 25), a backend system (claims 19 and 25), a customer device (claims 19 and 25), a communications network (claims 19 and 25), a score tracking interface of an application running on the customer device (claims 19 and 25), and a database (claims 19 and 25). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 19 and 25 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 20-22, 26-31, 33, and 37, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 19 and 25. The additional elements in claims 23, 24, 32, and 34-36 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 23, 24, 32, and 34-36, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 23, 24, 32, and 34-36 also recite the additional elements of: a unique booking engine URL (claims 23, 24, 34, and 35), an online marketplace (claims 23, 24, 34, and 35), a second customer device (claims 24 and 35), a search interface of the online marketplace (claims 24 and 35), an application running on the second customer device (claims 24 and 35), a native application installed on the customer device (claims 32 and 36), and a web application running in a browser application installed on the customer device (claims 32 and 36). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 23, 24, 32, and 34-36, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: a unique booking engine URL (claims 23, 24, 34, and 35), an online marketplace (claims 23, 24, 34, and 35), a second customer device (claims 24 and 35), a search interface of the online marketplace (claims 24 and 35), an application running on the second customer device (claims 24 and 35), a native application installed on the customer device (claims 32 and 36), and a web application running in a browser application installed on the customer device (claims 32 and 36), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 23, 24, 32, and 34-36 are also ineligible.
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.
Claims 19-22, 25-33, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0234385 to Vanslette et al. (Vanslette) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0026709 to Palmer et al. (Palmer).
As to claim 19, Vanslette teaches, a computer-implemented method for real-time golf score tracking and tee time adjustment, the method comprising (“In accordance with aspects of the present invention, the real-time locations of patrons on a golf course can be utilized by the system for real-time adjustment of a tee time based on current throughput, wherein spacing between start times is increased or decreased according to a level of congestion …” and “As would be appreciated by one skilled in the art, all of the tracking, data aggregation, calculations, determinations, derivations, etc. are necessarily performed by the combination of hardware and software embodied in the system 100, as described herein …” [0021 and 0170-0171]):
recording, by the backend system, the first hole number in a database (“… The data management tool 14 can also include a database management system utilizing a given database model configured to interact with a user for analyzing the database data …” and “… The calculated metrics for pace of play can be related to a pace of play for a particular course, particular hole, a particular golfer, a particular group of golfers, etc. … An example formula for such a calculation can be written as TT(i,j)=T(i,j)−WW(i,j) where i is a group number, j is a hole number, n is a cage number, TT(i,j) is a true playing time (a play time minus a wait time) to play Hole j by Group i, T(i,j) is the actual time duration group i took to play Hole j, and WW(i,j) is the total wait time for group i on hole j for all cages 402 on hole j …” and “… Additionally, the unique identifier can be associated with a particular player or group in the system 100 (e.g., a user profile in the database) such that the tracked data can be associated with the respective party” [0049-0050 and 0101-0102 and 0148] Examiner notes that “hole number” is part of the tracked data taught by Vanslette);
tracking, by the backend system, a physical location of the user in real-time according to the first hole number (“In accordance with aspects of the present invention, geolocation boundaries for the two or more virtual cages can be positioned around a tee off area and a green area on each hole of a golf course …” and “FIGS. 4A and 4B depict example implementations of cages 402 positioned on a hole 400 of a golf course. As discussed in greater detail herein, the cages 402 are used to gather data when a player crosses a boundary defined the geolocation points associated with the cage 402 …” [0017-0018 and 0114-0121]);
and adjusting, by the backend system a subsequent tee time based on the physical location of the user (“In accordance with aspects of the present invention, the real-time locations of patrons on a golf course can be utilized by the system for real-time adjustment of a tee time based on current throughput …” and “… For example, if hole number seventeen has been played in eighteen minutes by a particular player or group and the eighteen minutes is the longest time of any active throughput for a player or group on holes seventeen that day, then the system 100 adjusts the tee time spacing from the predetermined spacing (e.g., 14 minutes) to eighteen minutes to account for the lengthier playtime throughput …” [0021 and 0162]).
Vanslette does not teach, receiving in real-time at a backend system, a first hole number sent from a customer device over a communications network, the first hole number input by a user on a score tracking interface of an application running on the customer device. However, Palmer teaches, receiving in real-time at a backend system, a first hole number sent from a customer device over a communications network, the first hole number input by a user on a score tracking interface of an application running on the customer device (“… A hole selection screen 56 allows the user to select which hole on which that particular round begins (often useful for "shotgun" starts where a group may begin the round on a hole other than number one) …” and “… For a new course the user enters the name and the hole information on a hole by hole basis …” [0045-0051 and 0075-0076] Examiner notes Fig. 2A showing “Start Hole” where user selects a hole number).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving in real-time at a backend system, a first hole number sent from a customer device over a communications network, the first hole number input by a user on a score tracking interface of an application running on the customer device, as taught by Palmer with the method of Vanslette. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Palmer that doing so would provide a golf scorekeeping and statistic analysis system which is relatively non-disruptive to use during playing a round of golf [0006].
Regarding claim 25, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 19 other than it recites a system instead of a method. Because Vanslette teaches a system as well as a method (see at least Vanslette [0009]), claim 25 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 19, relying on the same combination of Vanslette and Palmer to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity
As to claims 20 and 26, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claims 19 and 25 as discussed above. Vanslette further teaches, wherein the second hole number replaces the first hole number in the database (“… and stores, using a database or data storage device, updated historic data …” and “… The local or cloud computing infrastructure can utilize a live (e.g., real-time) look-in of the location data for all patrons to make determinations related to congestion and can record the location information over time to accurately estimate wait times, predict future points of congestion, or identify other issues …” and “… An example formula for such a calculation can be written as TT(i,j)=T(i,j)−WW(i,j) where i is a group number, j is a hole number, n is a cage number, TT(i,j) is a true playing time (a play time minus a wait time) to play Hole j by Group i, T(i,j) is the actual time duration group i took to play Hole j, and WW(i,j) is the total wait time for group i on hole j for all cages 402 on hole j …” [0023 and 0038-0039 and 0101-0102] Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the data collected “over time” replaces the previous data, which includes hole number);
updating, by the backend system, the physical location of the user according to the second hole number (“… The wireless gateway can be configured to receive location data from the one or more patron sensor devices and a tracking tool can be configured to track movements of each of the one or more patron sensor devices over a period of time based on received location data … The pace of play of the patron can be determined in accordance with TT(i,j)=T(i,j)−WW(i,j) where i is a group number, j is a hole number, n is a cage number, TT(i,j) is a play time minus a wait time to play hole j by group i, T(i,j) is the actual time duration group i took to play hole j, and WW(i,j) is the total wait time for group i on hole j for all cages on hole j … ” and “FIG. 4A depicts an example implementation in which boundaries for the cage 402 zones are setup on a hole 400 of a golf course, represented by the dashed lines …” [0012-0014 and 0115-0121]);
and adjusting, by the backend system, the subsequent tee time based on the physical location of the user (“In accordance with aspects of the present invention, the real-time locations of patrons on a golf course can be utilized by the system for real-time adjustment of a tee time based on current throughput …” and “… For example, if hole number seventeen has been played in eighteen minutes by a particular player or group and the eighteen minutes is the longest time of any active throughput for a player or group on holes seventeen that day, then the system 100 adjusts the tee time spacing from the predetermined spacing (e.g., 14 minutes) to eighteen minutes to account for the lengthier playtime throughput …” [0021 and 0162]).
Vanslette does not teach, receiving in real-time and storing, by the backend system, a second hole number sent from the customer device over the communications network. However, Palmer teaches receiving in real-time and storing, by the backend system, a second hole number sent from the customer device over the communications network (“… A hole selection screen 56 allows the user to select which hole on which that particular round begins (often useful for "shotgun" starts where a group may begin the round on a hole other than number one) …” and “… When the golfer has seen all of this screen that is desired, they activate Done and proceed to a continue screen 80 which allows activation of the next hole or, after all of the holes have been played, a Round Complete selection …” [0044-0045 and 0051] Examiner notes Fig. 2B showing an option to select “Next hole”, which is a selection of a second hole number (i.e., the hole number after the previously played hole)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving in real-time and storing, by the backend system, a second hole number sent from the customer device over the communications network, as taught by Palmer with the method of Vanslette. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Palmer that doing so would provide a golf scorekeeping and statistic analysis system which is relatively non-disruptive to use during playing a round of golf [0006].
As to claims 21 and 27, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claims 19 and 25 as discussed above. Vanslette further teaches, wherein adjusting the subsequent tee time comprises adjusting at least one of: a start time and a starting hole (“In accordance with aspects of the present invention, the real-time locations of patrons on a golf course can be utilized by the system for real-time adjustment of a tee time based on current throughput, wherein spacing between start times is increased or decreased according to a level of congestion …” and “… The longest current throughput time is used to determine asset start time space or tee time spacing between golfers/groups. As would be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the throughput is fluid throughout the day and can be adjusted based on size of group (singles vs twosome vs threesome vs. foursome, etc.) and whether they are walking, riding or have a caddie” [0021 and 0162-0163]).
As to claims 22 and 28, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claims 19 and 25 as discussed above. Vanslette does not teach, receiving in real-time at the backend system, at least one of: a current hole score and an approach shot selection sent from the customer device over the communications network, at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection input by a user on the score tracking interface of the application running on the customer device; and recording, by the backend system, at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection in a scoresheet in the database. However, Palmer teaches, receiving in real-time at the backend system, at least one of: a current hole score and an approach shot selection sent from the customer device over the communications network, at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection input by a user on the score tracking interface of the application running on the customer device (“Referring now to the illustration of FIG. 3, it may be seen that data has been collected from a variety of additional fields, including choice of club off the tee, driving distance, direction of missing fairway, shots to the green, approach shots, including type and success rate, short game, sand and putting …” and “… That is, the sore [sic] (defaulted at par) is adjusted up or down to the actual score …” [0053 and 0075-0076] Examiner notes Fig. 2A showing a box to select “Score” and Fig. 3A showing a box to select “Approach”);
and recording, by the backend system, at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection in a scoresheet in the database (“… The entered data is stored and may be retrieved either concurrently or at a later time to provide analysis of the round and the efforts of the player …” [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving in real-time at the backend system, at least one of: a current hole score and an approach shot selection sent from the customer device over the communications network, at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection input by a user on the score tracking interface of the application running on the customer device; and recording, by the backend system, at least one of the current hole score and the approach shot selection in a scoresheet in the database, as taught by Palmer with the method of Vanslette. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Palmer that doing so would provide a golf scorekeeping and statistic analysis system which is relatively non-disruptive to use during playing a round of golf [0006].
As to claim 29, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 as discussed above. Vanslette does not teach, wherein the customer device is further configured to: display a score meter on the score tracking interface, the score meter showing the current hole score relative to a par score. However, Palmer teaches, wherein the customer device is further configured to: display a score meter on the score tracking interface, the score meter showing the current hole score relative to a par score (“… Various numbers appear on the screen, with the par on the hole, in this case 5, being initially highlighted …” and “… This screen provides details on how the golfer played on that round, including score, putts and results on holes of various par values (vertical scrolling accesses more details)” [0046 and 0050-0051] Examiner note Fig. 2A showing the user hole score relative to a par score).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the customer device is further configured to: display a score meter on the score tracking interface, the score meter showing the current hole score relative to a par score, as taught by Palmer with the method of Vanslette. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Palmer that doing so would provide a golf scorekeeping and statistic analysis system which is relatively non-disruptive to use during playing a round of golf [0006].
As to claim 30, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 as discussed above. Vanslette further teaches, wherein the customer device is further configured to: display a map layout of a current hole corresponding to the current hole score on the score tracking interface (“… For the live traffic control, the data management tool 14 can provide an interactive course map. As would be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the live traffic control can include heat maps, an ability to zoom in and out, among other features to assist in visualizing patron traffic flow and congestion to users (e.g., operators)” and “… For example, the data gathered throughout the golf course virtual or computer generated cages 402 can be created by identifying specific locations as an overlay on an electronic mapping of the golf course …” [0092 and 0109 - 0111]).
As to claim 31, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 as discussed above. Vanslette does not teach, wherein the customer device is further configured to: display a course summary on the score tracking interface, the course summary showing a plurality of hole scores and an overall round score. However, Palmer teaches, wherein the customer device is further configured to: display a course summary on the score tracking interface, the course summary showing a plurality of hole scores and an overall round score (“… For example, each embodiment provides a scoring summary 100, a stats summary 102 and an oops! summary 104. In each case it is noted that some of the analysis screens have more detail than can be displayed at one time and thus have subscreens (labeled as 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 in the scoring summary 100 situation) …” and “After completing the round, the player can access the summary of that round, showing a variety of results, such as shown on FIG. 4 …” [0056-0060 and 0081-0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the customer device is further configured to: display a course summary on the score tracking interface, the course summary showing a plurality of hole scores and an overall round score, as taught by Palmer with the method of Vanslette. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Palmer that doing so would provide a golf scorekeeping and statistic analysis system which is relatively non-disruptive to use during playing a round of golf [0006].
As to claims 32 and 36, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claims 25 and 35 as discussed above. Vanslette further teaches, wherein the application is a native application installed on the customer device (“… As would be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the information provided to the operator device(s) 18 and patron device(s) 20 can be accessed through a specific application designed for the particular operator device 18 or patron device 20 or the operator device 18 and patron device 20 can use existing applications to access the information (e.g., access a webpage through a web browser on the patron device 20)” [0052-0053]).
As to claims 33 and 37, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claims 25 and 35 as discussed above. Vanslette further teaches, wherein the application is a web application running in a browser application installed on the customer device (“… As would be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the information provided to the operator device(s) 18 and patron device(s) 20 can be accessed through a specific application designed for the particular operator device 18 or patron device 20 or the operator device 18 and patron device 20 can use existing applications to access the information (e.g., access a webpage through a web browser on the patron device 20)” [0052-0053]).
Claims 23, 24, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0234385 to Vanslette et al. (Vanslette) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0026709 to Palmer et al. (Palmer), as applied to claims 19 and 25 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0392007 to Jindra et al. (Jindra).
As to claims 23 and 34, Vanslette in view of Palmer teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 and 25 as discussed above. Vanslette in view of Palmer does not teach, setting, by the backend system, a unique booking engine URL for accessing the subsequent tee time in an online marketplace. However, Jindra teaches, setting, by the backend system, a unique booking engine URL for accessing the subsequent tee time in an online marketplace (“… As shown in FIGS. 2b and 2c, if the initial search is for a particular date, such as for Feb. 2, 2012, a list will be presented showing available golf tee times of that day …” and “… programming to permit a user to find available tee times and make reservations …” [0034-0035 and 0040] Examiner notes Figs. 2A and 2C showing underlined URL links for bookings. Examiner also note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the URLs are unique in that they are uniquely named/identified).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, setting, by the backend system, a unique booking engine URL for accessing the subsequent tee time in an online marketplace, as taught by Jindra with the method of Vanslette in view of Palmer. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jindra that doing so would provide an improved and user-friendly, internet navigation and search for user activity [0013].
As to claims 24 and 35, Vanslette in view of Palmer in view of Jindra teaches all of the limitations of claim 23 and 34 as discussed above. Vanslette in view of Palmer does not teach, receiving, by the backend system, search criteria sent from a second customer device, the search criteria input by a second user on a search interface of the online marketplace accessed via an application running on the second customer device; and providing, by the backend system, the unique booking engine URL to the second customer device when the search criteria matches the subsequent tee time. However, Jindra teaches, receiving, by the backend system, search criteria sent from a second customer device, the search criteria input by a second user on a search interface of the online marketplace accessed via an application running on the second customer device (“Referring to the drawing of FIG. 1, a concierge service system and method 100 according to the present invention is directed to a preferred embodiment which includes programming to provide an interface 101 that is provided for selection of one or more categories of search criteria 110 associated with a particular good or service …” and “… The solution features delivery of results via web-based applications as well as iOS and Android apps. Results can include push delivery of relevant options to the user's 200 phone or other smart device, as well as browser” [0030-0034 and 0075]);
and providing, by the backend system, the unique booking engine URL to the second customer device when the search criteria matches the subsequent tee time (“… Thereafter the system can directly link a user to the internet site associated with the golf course selected from the search result. In addition, or in an alternative embodiment, the system includes programming to wait for a defined period to ensure confirmation from the target internet site before sending a link to the user …” and “Furthermore, the server programming 450 includes programming for one or more portals 480 which portals 480 can be include a link to a third party website, such as a provider website 500 associated with a provider 220 and/or programming to emulate portions of a provider website 500 related to the transaction details pertinent to the search …” [0034-0042 and 0057-0058] Examiner notes Figs. 2A and 2C showing underlined URL links returned to a user as part of the search results).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receiving, by the backend system, search criteria sent from a second customer device, the search criteria input by a second user on a search interface of the online marketplace accessed via an application running on the second customer device; and providing, by the backend system, the unique booking engine URL to the second customer device when the search criteria matches the subsequent tee time, as taught by Jindra with the method of Vanslette in view of Palmer. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Jindra that doing so would provide an improved and user-friendly, internet navigation and search for user activity [0013].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0113912 to Ebertet al. (Ebert)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0250628 to New et al. (New)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0325171 to Niegowski (Niegowski)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0210263 to Smeenge et al. (Smeenge)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0243262 to Hofmann (Hofmann)
U.S. Patent No. 6,135,893 to Probert (Probert)
U.S. Patent No. 5,214,679 to Metcalf (Metcalf)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
