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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
The newly amended limitations directed towards “the user to have interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues with the application” as seen in claims 1, 8 and 15 are seen to constitute new matter. A review of the specification as originally filed does not find explicit support for these limitations constituting them new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 12-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed (US 20220161121 A1) in view of Imes (US 20210409656 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Syed teaches 1. A system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course, the system comprising: See Abstract, a remote server including a processor and a database, the database being configured to store golf course data comprising historical golf shot data of the user, shot data of other golfers, and data describing landmark features of the golf course; See [0005+][0037+][0103+], Fig. 7, a location module configured to determine the current position of the user on the golf course; See [0009+], an application with a graphical user interface operating on a mobile device with a microphone and a speaker wirelessly coupled to the remote server configured to enable the user to have interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues with the application, wherein the remoter server, via the application, receives user-reported environmental and experiential inputs, wherein the inputs are used by the remote server to create adaptive golf club selection and shot recommendation guidance customized to the user's situational context on the golf course; See [0041+][0102+][0125+], wherein the processor is configured to generate shot recommendations based on the interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues and analytical golf data comprising the user's current location, the user's prior playing history, verbal feedback from the user, and situational context including landmark features of the golf course and golf shot likelihoods derived from the golf data; and See [0003+][0036+], wherein the processor is further configured to adaptively learn the user's tendencies over multiple golf rounds by analyzing the interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues and the user's verbal responses, golf shot outcomes, and deviations from prior suggestions in order to improve the accuracy of future shot recommendations. See [0004+][0038+] which speaks of machine learning based on one or more parameters. Further, the disclosure speaks of being responsive to user input received via the user interface to generate one or more recommendations. .
Imes does teach what the primary reference is silent on including the use of a graphical user interface on a mobile device that has interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues with the application through a remote service. See [0092+][0031+] wherein the share selector (and the means such as text, messages etc… (which could include verbal talking) may be considered the two way natural language dialogue. [0031+] teaches the use of AI which includes the speech and language processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Imes to assist in growing the game of golf. ([0092+]).
Regarding claim 2, Syed teaches 2. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 1, further comprising receiving, via the application, at least one of current ball lie conditions, wind presence imperceptible to mechanical sensors, ground irregularities, the user's personal shot history or physical limitations. See [0003+][0004+].
Regarding claim 3, Syed teaches 3. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a success probability for a given golf shot of the user based on the analytical golf data and the golf course data. See [0112+] wherein the estimated distance an object will likely travel is a success probability for a given shot. For example, if the player is trying to get the ball onto the green from a fairway the past performance of the user swinging a 5 iron can be used to see what their average distance swinging that club with the current conditions are to determine if the players ability to hit with that club in the conditions will result in the ball traveling far enough to reach the green.
Regarding claim 4, Syed teaches 4. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 1, wherein the shot recommendations generated by the processor include suggested club selection, aiming direction, and swing adjustment instructions based on the user's verbal description of a prior shot result. See [0128+] wherein the "response to input receive from a user" may include the verbal description as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Syed teaches 5. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to use a reinforcement learning algorithm to refine shot recommendations over time based on the user's actual shot outcomes compared to predicted outcomes. See [0128+] which speaks of this refinement with machine learning.
Regarding claim 8, Syed teaches 8. A system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course, the system comprising: See Abstract, a remote server comprising a processor and a database, the database configured to store golf course data including historical golf shot data of the user, shot data associated with other amateur and professional golfers, and data characterizing physical and strategic features of the golf course; See [0005+][0037+][0103+], Fig. 7, a location module communicatively coupled to the remote server and configured to determine the current geolocation of the user on the golf course; See [0009+], an application with a graphical user interface operating on a mobile device with a microphone and a speaker wirelessly coupled to the remote server configured to enable the user to have interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues with the an AI assistant of the application, wherein the remoter server controls the AI assistance, via the application, and receiver user-reported environmental and experiential inputs, wherein the inputs are used by the remote server to create adaptive golf club selection and shot recommendation guidance customized to the user's situational context on the golf course; See [0041+][0102+][0125+], wherein the processor is configured to learn the user's tendencies and generate golf shot recommendations based on the interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues and analytical golf data that includes the user's current geolocation, the user's prior golf shot history, verbal feedback received from the user, and contextual information derived from golf course features and shot outcome probabilities; and See [0003+][0036+], wherein the processor is further configured to adaptively improve future recommendations over multiple rounds of golf by analyzing the interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues and the user's verbal responses, golf shot outcomes, and deviations from prior recommendations to iteratively refine predictive models associated with the user. See [0004+][0038+] which speaks of machine learning based on one or more parameters. Further, the disclosure speaks of being responsive to user input received via the user interface to generate one or more recommendations.
Imes does teach what the primary reference is silent on including the use of a graphical user interface on a mobile device that has interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues with the application through a remote service. An AI assistant. See [0092+][0031+] wherein the share selector (and the means such as text, messages etc… (which could include verbal talking) may be considered the two way natural language dialogue. [0031+] teaches the use of AI which includes the speech and language processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Imes to assist in growing the game of golf. ([0092+]).
Regarding claim 9, Syed teaches 9. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 8, further comprising receiving, via the application, at least one of current ball lie conditions, wind presence imperceptible to mechanical sensors, ground irregularities, the user's personal shot history or physical limitations. See [0003+][0004+].
Regarding claim 12, Syed teaches 12. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 8, further comprising wearable sensors communicatively coupled to the remote server configured to track vital signs of the user, wherein the user's vital signs are used to make the shot recommendations. See [0041+].
Regarding claim 13, Syed teaches 13. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 8, further comprising receiving, via the application, at least one of current ball lie conditions, wind presence imperceptible to mechanical sensors, ground irregularities, the user's personal shot history or physical limitations. See [0003+][0004+].
Regarding claim 15, Syed teaches 15. A system for providing interactive, conversational golf shot guidance across an entire golf course hole, from tee to golf hole, the system comprising: See Abstract, a remote server comprising a processor and a database, the database configured to store user-specific golf shot history, contextual golf course data, and outcome-based shot analytics from prior amateur and professional play; See [0005+][0037+][0103+], Fig. 7, a location module configured to continuously determine a current geolocation of a user throughout progression on the golf course hole; See [0009+], an application with a graphical user interface operating on a mobile device with a microphone and a speaker wirelessly coupled to the remote server configured to enable the user to have interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues with the application, wherein the remoter server, via the application receives user- reported environmental and experiential inputs, wherein the inputs are used by the remote server to create adaptive golf club selection and shot recommendation guidance customized to the user's situational context on the golf course; See [0041+][0102+][0125+], wherein the processor is configured to continuously conduct interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogue with the user throughout play of the golf hole, including receiving verbal user input regarding prior shot feedback and future shot intention, and providing predictive verbal guidance on shot selection, club choice, aiming strategy, and risk assessment based on golf course topology, user shot tendencies, and learned outcome data and providing golf swing adjustment suggestions based on a practice swing characteristics of the user; and wherein the system is further configured to dynamically update and apply one or more machine learning models that correlate user verbal feedback, shot execution results, and deviations from recommended strategy, and to use those updated models to improve the quality and personalization of verbal guidance on subsequent holes and future rounds based on the interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues. See [0003+][0004+][0036+][0038+] which speaks of machine learning based on one or more parameters. Further, the disclosure speaks of being responsive to user input received via the user interface to generate one or more recommendations. The recommendations are inclusive of the golf swing adjustments as claimed.
Imes does teach what the primary reference is silent on including the use of a graphical user interface on a mobile device that has interactive, real-time, two-way conversational natural language dialogues with the application through a remote service. And continuous interaction. See [0092+][0031+] wherein the share selector (and the means such as text, messages etc… (which could include verbal talking) may be considered the two way natural language dialogue. [0031+] teaches the use of AI which includes the speech and language processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Imes to assist in growing the game of golf. ([0092+]).
Regarding claim 16, Syed teaches 16. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 15, further comprising receiving, via the application, at least one of current ball lie conditions, wind presence imperceptible to mechanical sensors, ground irregularities, the user's personal shot history or physical limitations. See [0003+][0004+].
Regarding claim 17, Syed teaches 17. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate a success probability for a given golf shot of the user based on the analytical golf data and the golf course data. See [0112+] wherein the estimated distance an object will likely travel is a success probability for a given shot. For example, if the player is trying to get the ball onto the green from a fairway the past performance of the user swinging a 5 iron can be used to see what their average distance swinging that club with the current conditions are to determine if the players ability to hit with that club in the conditions will result in the ball traveling far enough to reach the green.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed (US 20220161121 A1) in view of Imes (US 20210409656 A1) and Shim (WO 2018139906 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Shim teaches 6. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 1, wherein the microphone and speaker are integrated into augmented reality (AR) glasses. see "As shown in FIG. 1, the wearable glass includes a processor 101 for performing all operations required to execute a game in augmented reality mode, a memory 102 for temporarily storing data, and a store for storing various data. Device 103, a power management unit 106 for controlling the power consumption of the wearable glass, a speaker 105 for audio output, a microphone 106 for audio input, and a display for displaying augmented reality mode (a camera 108 for acquiring an image...".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Shim to provide means for audio output and audio input in AR glasses.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed (US 20220161121 A1) in view of Coleman (CA 2923979 A1) and Imes (US 20210409656 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Coleman teaches 7. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 1, wherein the application is further configured to provide audible prompts after a shot to obtain verbal self-assessment feedback from the user. See [00245+] which speaks of the device prompting the user for feedback to use in a machine learning algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Coleman to allow the machine learning modules to adjust the user’s information ([00246+]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed (US 20220161121 A1) in view of Imes (US 20210409656 A1) and Leech (US 20150343291 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Leech teaches 10. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 8, further comprising a wearable camera integrated augmented reality (AR) glasses including an augmented reality visual display that overlays suggested shot trajectories, hazards, and target areas in a field of view of the user. See [0042+][0053+][0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Leech to display the visual overlays/enhanced imagery via the eyeglasses in a manner that makes it appear to rest on the ground or objects as desired. ([0053+]).
Claims 11, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed (US 20220161121 A1) in view of Border (US 20120235900 A1) and Imes (US 20210409656 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Border teaches 11. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 8, further comprising augmented reality (AR) glasses having an optical rangefinder and project laser-calculated distances and hazard information onto a heads-up display visible to the user. See [0492+][0547+] which teaches the AR glasses and the laser range detector. The disclosure also speaks of the golf environment wherein the choice of which data to display is a standard design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Border to enable the wearer of the eyepiece to view the surrounding environment as well as the displayed image. (See [0150+]).
Regarding claim 18, Syed teaches 18. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 11, wherein the shot recommendations generated by the processor include suggested club selection, aiming direction, and swing adjustment instructions based on the user's verbal description of a prior shot result. See [0128+] wherein the "response to input receive from a user" may include the verbal description as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Syed teaches 19. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to use a reinforcement learning algorithm to refine shot recommendations over time based on the user's actual shot outcomes compared to predicted outcomes. See [0128+] which speaks of this refinement with machine learning.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed (US 20220161121 A1) in view of Imes (US 20210409656 A1) and Yuen (KR 20230147199 A).
Regarding claim 14, Yuen teaches 14. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a predicted ball trajectory and landing area based on the user's swing data and compare it to optimal target zones on the golf course. see "The trajectory can be estimated." The generation and comparison of the optimal zones as claimed may be considered part of the combination wherein the estimated trajectory and the recommendations from the primary reference would achieve this result. Such is extra solution activity based on standard data processing algorithms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Yuen to provide an estimated trajectory to the use.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syed (US 20220161121 A1) in view of Coleman (CA 2923979 A1) and Imes (US 20210409656 A1) and Leech (US 20150343291 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Coleman teaches 20. The system for providing interactive golf shot guidance of a golf ball to a user on a golf course of claim 10, wherein the application is further configured to provide audible prompts after a shot to obtain verbal self-assessment feedback from the user. See [00245+] which speaks of the device prompting the user for feedback to use in a machine learning algorithm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Syed with Coleman to allow the machine learning modules to adjust the user’s information ([00246+]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections that are initiated by applicant’s amendments to the claims. The arguments appear to be directed towards the patentability of the newly amended claims. Augments grounds of rejection are furnished above addressing these limitations. As such, the arguments are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Douglas US 11006100 B1 - teaches glasses with laser range finder that also mentions golf.
Palermo US 20170239538 A1 - teaches a range finder built into glasses.
Mingo US 20150070649 A1 - teach a range finder for a golfing environment.
Jurczak US 20240245972 A1 - Golfing with AI feedback data.
Kim WO 2023149607 A1 - AI golf dialogue however not much mention of recommendations.
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 JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711