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 statements (IDS) submitted on April 2, 2025, and August 18, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
37 CFR 1.98(c) states that when the disclosures of two or more patents or publications listed in an information disclosure statement are substantively cumulative, a copy of one of the patents or publications may be submitted without copies of the other patents or publications provided that a statement is made that these other patents or publications are cumulative. As explained in MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection II, the examiner will in that case consider only the patent or publication of which a copy is submitted and will so indicate on the IDS by crossing out the listing of the cumulative information. In this case, in the IDS filed April 2, 2025, Foreign Document Cites No. 1, 3, and 10 are cumulative, with copies of Cite No. 10 (WO 2020/0232139) being provided; and Foreign Document Cites No. 2, 4, and 11 are cumulative, with copies of Cite No. 11 (WO 2021/248050) being provided. Accordingly, the examiner has crossed out cumulative Cites No. 1-4.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it appears the reference numbers “438” and “450” in Fig. 4H and reference number “560” in Fig. 5C (and/or their lead lines) have been misplaced.
In addition, in Fig. 4G, reference number “442” is used to designate part of a spacer (440), but reference number “442” is used in para. 0093 of the specification (apparently mistakenly) to refer to a main body of the ferrule (502). (See specification objection below.) The drawings and/or the specification should be amended for consistency.
Additionally, Figs. 8A-D do not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h) which requires that all views (i.e., all figures) must be clearly separated from each other. The use of common reference numbers “512”, “500”, “804”, and “802” centered between Figs. 8A and 8B, and common reference number “804” centered between Figs. 8B and 8C, is informal.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. 0063, last three lines, it appears that “compartment assembly 600” should read --compartment assembly 800--, “flagstick 300” should read --flagstick 500--, and “sensors 602” should read --sensors 802-- for consistency with the drawings.
In para. 0069, lines 6-7, a close parenthesis is missing after “118.”
In para. 0072, line 2, it appears that “elongated pole 312 of the flagstick 300” should read --elongated pole 512 of the flagstick 500-- for consistency with the drawings.
In para. 0073, line 9, “a 204” should read --a battery 204--.
In para. 0074, line 3, it appears that “recess 428 may include a taper 416” should read --receptacle 412 may include a taper 416--, for consistency with Figs. 4D-E.
In para. 0076, line 6, it appears that “datum 260” should read --datum 434-- for consistency with Fig. 4E and the rest of para. 0076 (see the immediately following sentence in line 6, as well as lines 10-12).
In para. 0084, line 8, it appears that “fasteners 238” should read --fasteners 448-- for consistency with Figs. 4G-H and the rest of para. 0084.
In para. 0090, last two lines, it appears that “main body 304” should read --main body 504--.
In para. 0093, in the last two lines of pg. 18, it appears that “main body 442 of the ferrule 502” should read --main body 504 of the ferrule 502--, referring to the main body (504) shown in Figs. 5A-C. The examiner notes that reference number “442” appears in Fig. 4G but indicates a part of a spacer (440), not a part of the ferrule (502). (See drawing objection above.)
In para. 0094, line 12, a close parenthesis is missing after “receptacle 526”.
In para. 0098, lines 2 and 6, it appears that each instance of “substrate 446” should read --substrate 568-- for consistency with Figs. 5D-E.
In para. 0105, lines 4, 5, and 7, it appears that each instance of “contacts 350a-356b” should read --contacts 550a-556b--, consistent with Fig. 5F and para. 0100-0103.
In para. 0107, line 3, it appears that “ferrule 302 and the channel 210” should read --ferrule 502 and the channel 418--. (Reference numbers “302” and “210” do not appear in the drawings.)
In para. 0108, line 8, it appears that “contacts 550a-358b” should read --contacts 550-556b--.
In para. 0110, line 2, it appears that “FIG. 8A and 6B” should read --FIG. 8A and 8B--.
In para. 0113, second to last line, a close parenthesis is missing after “server 112”.
In para. 0121, line 3, “the 128” should read --the electrical connector 128--.
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear whether the first portion of the releasably couplable electric connector is being positively claimed as part of the claimed electronic golf flagstick. Independent claim 1 recites an electronic golf flagstick comprising, inter alia, a ferrule disposed at the first end and comprising “a portion of a releasably couplable electric connector.” Claim 2 defines this portion of the connector as “a second portion.” Claim 2 then goes on to recite “the releasably couplable electric connector further comprises a first portion.” Considering the application disclosure, the first portion of the electric connector is described as part of a golf cup (see, e.g., ¶ 81 and Fig. 4B), not part of the flagstick. Because the claim is directed to the flagstick, it is unclear whether or to what extent the claimed flagstick is limited by features of the first portion of the electric connector. Claims 3-9 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 2.
Further regarding claim 6, the limitation “the portion of the releasably couplable electric connector comprises a second portion” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether “a second portion” in claim 6 refers to the same “second portion” introduced in claim 2 (from which claim 6 depends).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van Zandt (WO 2022/225899, hereinafter Van Zandt).
Regarding claim 11, Van Zandt discloses a game system (Figs. 4-5) comprising:
a releasably couplable electric connector (conductive members 320 and 324, ¶¶ 58-60);
a golf cup (318);
a first portion (320) of the releasably couplable electric connector coupled to the golf cup (318);
an electronic flagstick (100, Figs. 1 and 4) comprising:
an elongated pole (10) with a first end (10b) and a second end (10a),
a ferrule (14; “stab connector 14 may be referred to herein as a ferrule,” ¶ 32) coupled to the first end (10b) and releasably couplable to the golf cup (318; ¶ 60), and
a second portion (324) of the releasably couplable electric connector coupled to the ferrule (14), wherein when the ferrule (14) is releasably coupled to the golf cup (314), the first portion (320) and the second portion (324) establish an electrical connection therebetween (“when conductive members 324, 320 are brought into contact with one another, electrical current may flow from conductive 320 to conductive member 324,” ¶ 59).
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 1-2, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zandt in view of Otterdahl et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0226707, hereinafter Otterdahl).
Regarding claim 1, Van Zandt discloses an electronic golf flagstick (100, Figs. 1 and 4-5; ¶¶ 58-59) configured for sensing objects proximate the golf flagstick, comprising:
an elongated pole (10) comprising a first end (10a) and a second end (10b), the first end adapted to be removably secured to a surface (via ferrule 14 in aperture 13 of cup 12);
a compartment assembly (upper camera 110; ¶¶ 34-35), the compartment assembly (110) comprising at least one sensor (image sensor assembly 114, Fig. 2) configured to sense an object proximate the golf flagstick (“to detect and recognize objects (e.g., golf balls) in the images captured by image sensor assembly,” ¶ 39); and
a ferrule (14, Fig. 5) disposed at the first end and comprising a portion of a releasably couplable electric connector (conductive member 324; ¶ 58).
Van Zandt differs from the claimed invention in that the compartment assembly (110) that includes the sensor configured to detect the object proximate the flagstick is arranged at the first end rather than “between the first end and the second end” as claimed.1 However, Otterdahl teaches an electronic golf flagstick (100, Fig. 1) comprising a compartment assembly (122, ¶ 22) arranged between first and second ends of the flagstick (see Fig. 1) and comprising at least one sensor (13) configured to sense an object (e.g., golf ball 101) proximate the golf flagstick (“to detect one or more characteristics of the golf ball 101, including a position, a trajectory, and/or a visual depiction of the golf ball 101,” ¶ 22). Otterdahl teaches that this location facilitates a 360-degree visual representation of the surrounding environment including the ground surface around the flagstick (¶¶ 43, 52, 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Van Zandt by repositioning the compartment assembly from the first end to a position between the first and second ends, as taught by Otterdahl, in order to enhance sensing proximate the flagstick.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Van Zandt further teaches the portion of the releasably couplable electric connector (i.e., the conductive member 324, Fig. 5) is a second portion (324), and the releasably couplable electric connector further comprises a first portion (conductive member 320, Fig. 5) complementary in shape to the second portion (see Fig. 5, the conductive members 320 and 324 having complementary contacting surfaces), such that when the first end is removably secured to the surface, an electrical connection is established between the first portion (320) and the second portion (324; ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Van Zandt further teaches that when the ferrule (14, Fig. 5) engages the surface (at conductive member 320), the electrical connection is established between the first portion (320) and the second portion (324; ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Van Zandt is understood to teach that an interaction between the ferrule (14) and the surface (at mating aperture 13 of cup 12, Fig. 1) limits misalignment of the first portion (320) and the second portion (324) to less than about 0.4 degrees, due to the mating shape of the ferrule (14) and the surface of the aperture (13) such that the pole axis (15) is “generally aligned with the vertical direction” (¶ 51). If there is any doubt regarding the examiner’s interpretation of Van Zandt as implicitly disclosing this limitation, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Van Zandt by configuring the ferrule and the mating surface of the aperture to limit misalignment of the first and second portions to less than about 0.4 degrees, in order to maintain the vertical orientation of the flagstick and the corresponding electrical contact between the first and second portions.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Van Zandt further teaches the releasably couplable electric connector (320, 324, Fig. 5) is configured to supply electrical power to the compartment assembly (via batteries 140; ¶ 58).
Claims 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zandt in view of Otterdahl, in further view of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 7,335,067, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Van Zandt does not explicitly disclose a second plurality of electrical contacts of the second portion. To the extent that features of the first portion are considered limitations of the flagstick2, Van Zandt also does not teach that the first portion comprises a substrate with a first plurality of electrical contacts for interface with a corresponding second plurality of electrical contacts of the second portion. However, Lee teaches a releasably couplable electrical connector (see Figs. 12B and 17) configured for connection irrespective of angular orientation and suitable for use in harsh environments (see col. 1:7-13, 10:7-23), wherein the connector comprises a first portion (female SEADOG connector, Fig. 17) comprising a substrate with a first plurality of electrical contacts (“redundant contact power pins,” Fig. 12B; col. 5:33-55) coupled to the substrate (see, e.g., Fig. 11A cross section) and configured for physical and electrical interface with a corresponding second plurality of electrical contacts (“contact ring,” Fig. 12B; see also Fig. 17, both showing a plurality of contact rings) of a second portion (male SEADOG connector) (claim 3), wherein the first plurality of contacts is arranged in redundant pairs (“redundant contact power pins,” Fig. 12B) (claim 4). Lee teaches that the redundant pairs “will ensure that at least one of the spring-loaded contact pins in the redundant pair is in electrical contact with the metallic ring on the opposite half of the SEADOG connector at all times. Additionally, if one of the pairs of redundant contact pins becomes damaged, its twin will continue to provide electrical contact.” Col. 7:54-62. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Zandt by providing the first portion of the electrical connector with a first plurality of electrical contacts arranged in redundant pairs on a substrate for interface with a corresponding second plurality of contacts on the second portion, as taught by Lee, in order to ensure a reliable electrical connection irrespective of angular orientation and continued operation in the event of damage to one of the electrical contacts.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. To the extent that features of the first portion are considered limitations of the flagstick, Van Zandt further teaches the first portion (320, Fig. 5) comprises a connector (conductor 322) coupled to the substrate (i.e., the substrate to which the electrical contacts are coupled, as discussed above for claim 3), in electrical communication with the first plurality of electrical contacts (as discussed above), and configured to enable a wired connection to a device (wall outlet 316, Fig. 4) comprising a portion of a golfing system (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, including the portion of the releasably couplable electric connector comprising a second portion as discussed above for claim 2. Van Zandt does not explicitly disclose that the second portion comprises a substrate including a second plurality of electrical contacts for interface with a corresponding first plurality of electrical contacts of the first portion. However, Lee further teaches the second portion (male SEADOG connector, Fig. 17; see also Fig. 12B) of the electric connector comprises a substrate including a second plurality of electrical contacts (contact rings, Figs. 12B and 17) coupled thereto and configured for physical and electrical interface with a corresponding first plurality of electrical contacts (contact pins, Figs. 12B and 17) of the first portion, and the second plurality of electrical contacts are arranged in a nested circular pattern (“a plurality of electrically isolated concentric annular contacts,” col. 10:51-53). Lee teaches that this arrangement of electrical contacts permits the first and second portions to be mated “without regard for its orientation … irrespective of angular orientation.” Abstract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Van Zandt by providing the second portion of the electrical connector with a nested circular pattern of second electrical contacts on a substrate for interface with a corresponding first plurality of contacts on the first portion, as taught by Lee, in order to ensure a reliable electrical connection irrespective of angular orientation.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Van Zandt further teaches that when the first end (10b, Fig. 1) is removably secured to the surface (at aperture 13 of cup 12), an interaction between the ferrule (14) and the surface (at 13) necessarily limits compression of the first portion (320) by the second portion (324) to within an elastic compression distance (no particular compression distance being recited in the claim), due to the mating tapered shape of the interface (see Figs. 1 and 5). Regarding compression of the first plurality of electrical contacts by the second plurality of electrical contacts, Lee further teaches an interaction between mating surfaces of the connector limits compression of the first plurality of electrical contacts (i.e., the spring-loaded contact pins) by the second plurality of electrical contacts (i.e., the contact rings) to within an elastic compression distance (due to mating surfaces of the male and female connectors, see Figs. 11A-C; “keeping a constant pressure between the metallic contact surfaces within the two portions of the connector,” col. 7:48-54). When modifying Van Zandt in view of Lee as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the interaction between the ferrule and the surface to limit compression of the first plurality of electrical contacts by the second plurality of electrical contacts to within an elastic compression distance, as suggested by Van Zandt and Lee, in order to ensure a constant contact pressure between the spring-loaded first plurality of electrical contacts and the second plurality of electrical contacts to maintain a reliable electrical connection.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Zandt in view of Willett (US Patent Pub. 2010/0160057, hereinafter Willett).
Regarding claim 12, Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11. Van Zandt further discloses a sensor (upper camera 110, Fig. 1) coupled to the electronic flagstick, and a processor (117, Fig. 2; or 412, Fig. 9) in intermittent electrical communication with the sensor (110; ¶¶ 39-40, the communication being intermittent, e.g., when the device is turned on and off). Van Zandt does not teach that the electrical communication occurs via the releasably couplable electric connector. However, Willett teaches an electronic flagstick (illuminated flagpole 10, Fig. 1) that is powered on and off via a releasably couplable electric connector (stem 50 of flagstick 10 and leads 140 of cup insert 40, Figs. 1-2; ¶ 79) which connects the flagstick to the cup (“Power is introduced and conducted into a flagpole tube 20 whenever a golf flagpole tube 20 is inserted into a modified golf cup insert 40,” ¶ 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Van Zandt by supplying power to the sensor via the releasably couplable electric connector, as suggested by Willett, such that the intermittent electrical communication of the sensor and the processor is via the releasably couplable electric connector, in order to reduce the weight of the flagstick (e.g., by eliminating the on-board battery of the flagstick).
Regarding claims 13-15, the modified Van Zandt teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 12. Van Zandt further teaches the sensor (110, Fig. 1) comprises a camera configured to capture a 360-degree view of a location proximate the flagstick (¶ 36) (claim 13); wherein the processor (412) comprises a broadcast server (“a server,” ¶ 77; “to facilitate an enhanced viewing experience … via a broadcast of a golf event on television,” ¶ 31) configured to broadcast a live image of the location based on the 360-degree view (¶¶ 31, 114) (claim 14); and wherein the processor (412) is configured to change a displayed vantage point within the 360-degree view (¶ 80) (claim 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Van Zandt and Otterdahl are the closest prior art, as discussed above. Van Zandt and Otterdahl do not teach the steps of powering the sensor via the releasably couplable electric connector and transmitting data from the sensor to a processing element via the releasably couplable electric connector. While Willett does suggest powering an electronic flagstick via a releasably couplable electric connector (as noted above for claim 12), Willett does not teach transmitting data from a sensor to a processing element via the releasably couplable electric connector.
With respect to data transmission, Van Zandt and Otterdahl both rely on wireless communication using an antenna mounted on the flagstick. See Van Zandt, ¶¶ 42, 75; and Otterdahl, ¶¶ 23, 30. While Lee shows that data transmission was a known capability of releasably couplable electric connectors (see Lee, col. 2:34-38), it is the examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Van Zandt to incorporate this teaching as the specific step of transmitting the golf flagstick sensor data to the processing element via the releasably couplable connector, absent impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 The examiner notes that Van Zandt teaches additional cameras 120a-c arranged between the first and second ends, but Van Zandt does not explicitly disclose that these cameras include a sensor configured to sense an object proximate the golf flagstick as claimed.
2 See rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Prosecution Insights