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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-42 pass step 1 of the test for eligibility.
As per step 2A prong one, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Representative claim 1 recites, with emphasis added:
1. (Currently Amended) An electronic golfing aid system, comprising:
A digital processing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface which are coupled together;
An imager device coupled to the digital processing device;
An inclinometer device coupled to the digital processing device;
A portable display device coupled to the digital processing device;
Wherein the memory coupled to the processor is configured to execute programmed instructions comprising and stored in the memory to:
obtain image data from the imager device comprising at least one of a playing surface, a ball, or a designated location spaced from the ball on the playing surface and inclination data of the imager device from the inclinometer device;
determine at least one type of spatial data and at least one type of playing surface data relating to the playing surface, the ball and the designated location from the obtained image data and the inclination data;
compute an overall trajectory, a starting direction, and an initial velocity of the ball to reach the designated location based on the determined spatial data and the at least one type of playing surface data relating to the playing surface, wherein the compute the overall trajectory identifies and accounts for at least one airborne segment based on a determination of rotational velocity and translational velocity of the at least one airborne segment; and
display on the portable display device the computed overall trajectory, the starting direction, and the initial velocity of the ball to reach the designated location.
The above underlined portion of representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception because they are mere mental processes which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Particularly, a human could determine data about the ball, designated location, and playing surface and compute an overall trajectory and velocity, as this is the way that humans calculate the shot they will take.
Next, as per step 2A prong two, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements recited above that are not underlined in representative claim 1 comprise the additional elements. As discussed in more detail below, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
A processor, memory, communication device, and display is/are not an integration into a practical application as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
An inclinometer device and an imager device and obtain image data from the imager device comprising at least one of a playing surface, a ball, or a designated location spaced from the ball on the playing surface and inclination data of the imager device from the inclinometer device is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are insignificant data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Next, as per step 2B, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception.
A processor, memory, communication device, and display does not amount to significantly more as it is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
An inclinometer device and an imager device and obtain image data from the imager device comprising at least one of a playing surface, a ball, or a designated location spaced from the ball on the playing surface and inclination data of the imager device from the inclinometer device is/are extra-solution activity as these extra solution activities are well known data gathering and data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), thus they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The dependent claims of 2-14 and 16-28 are further rejected under 101 for the reasons described above as they simply further define the abstract idea (which makes the abstract idea no less abstract) without adding significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Further, taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
