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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 March 2026 has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14 and 16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/009416 to Vuagniaux (Vuagniaux) in view of US Patent No. 6,491,303 to Huston (Huston) and US Patent Application Publication 2011/0248448 to Hodge (Hodge).
Claim 1
With regard to a sensor wall defining a substantially vertical wall, Vuagniaux teaches a wall arrangement that includes a wall structure and a support structure to which the wall is attached substantially vertically (Fig. 4A, wall arrangement 2, wall structure 3, support structure 11; page 14, lines 29-32).
With regard to wherein a plurality of sensors are embedded in a multi-layer cover of the sensor wall, Vuagniaux teaches that the wall has a multiple layers including an impact layer and a support layer that cover the other layers of the wall and that the support layer includes openings for sound sensors (Fig. 1B, impact layer 4, support layer 6, openings 37; page 9, lines 2-18, 26-31).
With regard to wherein an external surface of the sensor wall is configured to deform under physical contact; Vuagniaux teaches that the impact layer conducts sounds (page 8, line 34 – page 9, line 8). Conducting sound would require deformation of the medium that conducts the sound.
With regard to wherein an external impact layer of the sensor wall includes indicators indicating where impacts against the sensor wall are to be directed, Vuagniaux teaches Led strips in a surface of wall that cover other layers that indicate where the next target is to be activated (page 9, lines 10-18, LED strips indicate the next target; Fig. 3; page 42, lines 26-34, indicates wall arrangement on which the next target will be activated).
With regard to a sensor layer beneath the external impact layer includes a plurality of sensors are configured to physically sense one or more impacts … against the sensor wall simultaneously or in a series from a user; Vuagniaux teaches that the wall uses sound sensors that are embedded in the support layer to sense and determine the position of an impact against the wall structure (page 10, line 12 – page 11, line 1, Figs. 1B, 2A, 2C, support layer 6, openings 37, grid area 9).
With regard to a base securing the sensor wall, wherein the base is attached to a floor or ground, Vuagniaux teaches a support structure that includes pegs to attach the support structure to the ground (Figs. 4A, 4B, structures 11, 11a, 11b; page 19, lines 18-24).
With regard to wherein the base includes a flange for securing the base to the floor or ground utilizing one or more connectors; Vuagniaux teaches a support structure that includes pegs to attach the support structure to the ground (Figs. 4A, 4B, structures 11, 11a, 11b; page 19, lines 18-24).
With regard to supports integrated with the sensor wall securing the sensor wall to the base; Vuagniaux teaches the wall arrangement includes protrusions and a frame to attach the wall to the support structure (page 17, line 26 – age 18, line 5; Figs. 4A, 4B).
Vuagniaux does not teach that the impact is sensed through contact pressure and that the plurality of sensors comprises an array of direct force sensors embedded within the multi-layer cover and configured to measure impact forces through direct physical contact. Hodge teaches detecting impact with a resistive grid or matrix for sensing impact (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Vuagniaux does not teach that the base includes a sleeve configured to receive the sensor wall. Huston teaches a support trim panel that includes narrowed receiving slots for holding a target (col. 3, lines 16-23, 53-61; Figs. 5, 6, target holder 10, support frame 10, side support trim panel 58, narrowed receiving slot 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include the support structure, as taught by Huston, because then better stability and easier insertion or removal of the wall structure would have been provided.
Claim 3
Vuagniaux teaches that the connectors represent bolts (page 17, line 26 – page 18, line 5, threaded bolt may be used for attachment means).
Claim 4
Vuagniaux teaches that the multi-layer cover of the sensor wall communicates with one or more electronic devices (page 10, lines 1-10, cables guided from sensors to more rear parts where electronic and/or electric components are housed; Fig. 1B, LED strips in support layer 6; page 32, lines 9-16, each wall arrangement has its own local electronic system; page 34, lines 11-14, data can be transferred to a portable device; Figs. 7A-7C).
Claim 5
Vuagniaux teaches that the mutli-layer cover of sensor wall communicates with the one or more electronic devices through one or more networks (page 10, lines 1-10, cables guided from sensors to more rear parts where electronic and/or electric components are housed; Fig. 1B, LED strips in support layer 6; page 32, lines 9-16, each wall arrangement has its own local electronic system; page 34, lines 11-14, data can be transferred to a portable device; Figs. 7A-7C).
Claim 6
Vuagniaux teaches indicators integrated with a surface of the mutli-layer cover that display striking information (page 9, lines 10-18, LED strips indicate the next target; Fig. 3).
Claim 7
Vuagniaux teaches that the striking information includes at least a time to strike and a location on the multi-layer cover to strike (page 42, lines 26-34, indicates wall arrangement on which the next target will be activated).
Claim 8
Vuagniaux teaches that the plurality of sensors measures a time of impact, a location of the impact on the sensor wall, a speed of the impact, and a force of the impact (Vuagniaux, page 33, lines 19-33, determines position; impact force or strength; assesses reaction time, which requires time of impact; speed of ball may be determined based on the strength of the impact and distance of the player).
Claim 9
Vuagniaux does not teach that the plurality of sensors includes accelerometers and capacitance or resistive sensors. Hodge teaches a resistive matrix, resistive sensing, an accelerometer and capacitive sensing (pars. 27, 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include resistive sensing, capacitive sensing, and an accelerometer, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Claim 10
Vuagniaux teaches that the base is removably attached to the ground or floor (page 19, lines 18-24, pegs driven into the ground; page 34, lines 21-19).
Claim 11
Vuagniaux teaches logic embedded in the sensor wall configured to locally execute one or more training or testing programs for a user based on real-time impact data generated from the plurality of sensors (page 42, lines 26-34, activating several targets such that the player has to select the target or targets; page 46, lines 5-9, runs exercise programs).
Claim 12
Vuagniaux teaches that the plurality of sensors senses impacts directly from the user utilizing one or more body parts (page 6, lines 25-31, Figures 8A-8C).
Claim 13
With regard to securing the sensor wall to a floor or ground utilizing a base, Vuagniaux teaches a support structure that includes pegs to attach the support structure to the ground (Figs. 4A, 4B, structures 11, 11a, 11b; page 19, lines 18-24).
With regard to wherein the base includes a flange for securing the base to the floor or ground utilizing one or more connectors, Vuagniaux teaches a support structure that includes pegs to attach the support structure to the ground (Figs. 4A, 4B, structures 11, 11a, 11b; page 19, lines 18-24).
With regard to positioning a multi-layer cover on the sensor wall; Vuagniaux teaches that the wall has a multiple layers including an impact layer and a support layer that cover the other layers of the wall (Fig. 1, B, impact layer 4, support layer 6; page 9, lines 2-18, 26-31).
With regard to wherein the multi-layer cover comprises an external layer forming an external surface of the sensor wall, the external surface is configured to deform under physical contact, a sensor layer containing a plurality of … sensors positioned beneath the external impact layer …, and a backing layer securing the sensor layer to the wall, Vuagniaux teaches an impact layer that conducts sound, a support layer that houses the sound sensors and a rigidifying layer behind the support layer (Fig. 1, impact layer 4, support layer 6, rigidifying layer 24; page 9, lines 2-18, 26-31; page 11, lines 13-19).
With regard to wherein the external impact layer includes integrated indicators indicating where impacts against the sensor wall are to be directed, Vuagniaux teaches LED strips in a surface of wall that cover other layers that indicate where the next target is to be activated (page 9, lines 10-18, LED strips indicate the next target; Fig. 3; page 42, lines 26-34, indicates wall arrangement on which the next target will be activated).
With regard to detecting an impact utilizing physical force measurements; Vuagniaux teaches that the wall uses sound sensors to sense and determine the position of an impact against the wall structure (page 10, line 12 – page 11, line 1, Figs. 1B, 2A, 2C, grid area 9).
With regard to determining an impact location based on which sensors detected physical contact; Vuagniaux teaches that the wall has a multiple layers including an impact layer and a support layer that cover the other layers of the wall and that the support layer includes openings for sound sensors that detect the impact (Fig. 1, B, impact layer 4, support layer 6, openings 37; page 9, lines 2-18, 26-31).
With regard to calculating impact force based on a magnitude of physical force detected by the sensors, Vuagniaux teaches using data from the sound sensors to determine impact force (page 33, lines 19-33)
With regard to processing the impact data by comparing the impact location to target locations displayed by the indicators, and generating impact results including at least the impact location, impact force and accuracy relative to displayed targets; Vuagniaux teaches processing the sound sensor data to determine the target or position where the impact occurred, the strength or force of an impact as well as the smoothness of an impact (page 10, line 12 – page 11,line 1; Figs. 1B, 2A, 2C; page 33, lines 19-33).
With regard to communicating the impact results from the multi-layer cover of the sensor wall to one or more associated devices; Vuagniaux teaches communicating from the sensors to an electronic device at the rear of the wall and to a portable device (page 10, lines 1-10, page 34, lines 1-14; page 36, lines 6-22; Figs. 7A-7C).
Vuagniaux does not teach that the base includes a sleeve for receiving the sensor wall. Huston teaches a support trim panel that includes narrowed receiving slots for holding a target (col. 3, lines 16-23, 53-61; Figs. 5, 6, target holder 10, support frame 10, side support trim panel 58, narrowed receiving slot 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include the support structure, as taught by Huston, because then better stability and easier insertion or removal of the wall structure would have been provided.
Vuagniaux does not teach configured to sense contact pressure, and a plurality of direct force sensors positioned beneath the external impact layer, and performing the detecting with direct physical force measurements from the plurality of direct force sensors within the sensor layer, and determining the impact location based on direct force sensors. Hodge teaches detecting impact with a resistive grid or matrix for sensing impact (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Claim 14
Vuagniaux teaches calibrating the plurality of sensors within the cover of the sensor layer (page 10, line 19 – page 11, line 1, sensor requires calibration). Vuagniaux does not teach that the sensor is a direct force sensor. Hodge teaches detecting impact with a resistive grid or matrix for sensing impact (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Claim 16
Vuagniaux teaches that the impact data further comprises a time of impact and a speed associated with the impact (Vuagniaux, page 33, lines 19-33, determines position; assesses reaction time, which requires time of impact; speed of ball may be determined based on the strength of the impact and distance of the player).
Claim 18
Vuagniaux teaches presenting one or more targets to one or more users using the integrated indicators (page 9, lines 10-18, LED strips used to indicate target; Fig. 3; page 42, lines 26-34, LED color may indicate to the player the color of the next target to be hit on the wall arrangement).
Claim 19
Vuagniaux teaches uploading one or more training or testing programs to be executed locally by logic embedded in the sensor wall for one or more users based on real-time impact data generated from the plurality of direct force sensors (page 42, lines 26-34, activating several targets such that the player has to select the target or targets; page 46, lines 5-9, runs exercise programs).
Claim 20
With regard to a sensor wall defining a substantially vertical wall, Vuagniaux teaches a wall arrangement that includes a wall structure and a support structure to which the wall is attached substantially vertically (Fig. 4A, wall arrangement 2, wall structure 3, support structure 11; page 14, lines 29-32).
With regard to wherein the sensor wall includes a multi-layer cover comprising: an external impact layer forming an impact surface and configured to deform under physical contact, a sensor layer positioned beneath the external layer containing a plurality of … sensors configured to measure impact force through direct physical contact, and a backing layer securing the sensor layer to the sensor wall, Vuagniaux teaches an impact layer that conducts sound, a support layer that houses the sensors and a rigidifying layer behind the support layer (Fig. 1, impact layer 4, support layer 6, rigidifying layer 24; page 9, lines 2-18, 26-31; page 11, lines 13-19).
With regard to wherein indicators are integrated within the external impact layer for indicating target locations for striking the sensor wall, Vuagniaux teaches using LED strips to indicate a target on the wall arrangement (page 10, lines 10-18; Fig. 3).
With regard to a base securing the sensor wall, wherein the base includes a flange for securing the base to a floor or ground utilizing one or more connectors; Vuagniaux teaches a support structure that includes pegs to attach the support structure to the ground (Figs. 4A, 4B, structures 11, 11a, 11b; page 19, lines 18-24).
Vuagniaux does not teach a plurality of direct force sensors and wherein the direct force sensors are configured to detect physical impacts through direct contact for force measurements. Hodge teaches detecting impact with a resistive grid or matrix for sensing impact (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Vuagniaux does not teach that the base includes a sleeve configured to receive the sensor wall. Huston teaches a support trim panel that includes narrowed receiving slots for holding a target (col. 3, lines 16-23, 53-61; Figs. 5, 6, target holder 10, support frame 10, side support trim panel 58, narrowed receiving slot 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include the support structure, as taught by Huston, because then better stability and easier insertion or removal of the wall structure would have been provided.
Claim 21
Vuagniaux teaches that sensors generate impact data comprising: an impact location determined based on which sensor detected physical contact, and impact force calculated based on a magnitude of physical force detected, a time of impact, a speed associated with the impact, and an accuracy measurement comparing the impact location to the target locations indicated by the integrated indicators (Vuagniaux, page 33, lines 19-33, determines position; impact force or strength; assesses reaction time, which requires time of impact; speed of ball may be determined based on the strength of the impact and distance of the player).
Vuagniaux does not teach direct force sensors. Hodge teaches detecting impact with a resistive grid or matrix for sensing impact (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Claim 22
Vuagniaux teaches logic in communication with the plurality of sensors, the logic executes one or more training programs for the user (page 42, lines 26-34, activating several targets such that the player has to select the target or targets; page 46, lines 5-9, runs exercise programs).
Vuagniaux does not teach direct force sensors. Hodge teaches detecting impact with a resistive grid or matrix for sensing impact (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 25-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendment and arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 12 March 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-14, 16, 18, 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1, 3-14, 16, 18 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Vuagniaux fails to disclose or suggest the claimed sensing architecture. Applicant states that the claims require the sensors themselves to measure impact forces through direct physical contact, which is structurally and functionally different from acoustic detection (Applicant’s Response, filed 12 March 2026, pages 11, 12; “Response”). While Vuagniaux does not teach that the impact is sensed through contact pressure and that the plurality of sensors comprise an array of direct force sensors, Vuaginiaux does teach a plurality of sensors embedded in a multi-layer cover of the sensor wall (Fig. 1B, impact layer 4, support layer 6, openings 37; page 9, lines 2-18, 26-31).
Applicant further states that Hodge fails to teach the structural mounting configuration required by the claims (Remarks, page 12). However, Hodge does teach detecting impact with a resistive grid or matrix for sensing impact (Figs. 1 and 2, pars. 25-27). The combination of the sensors in Hodge with the wall structure taught by Vuagniaux would result in the claimed sensor and wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided.
Applicant states that Huston likewise fails to teach the structural mounting configuration required by the claims (Response, page 12). Huston teaches a support trim panel that includes narrowed receiving slots for holding a target (col. 3, lines 16-23, 53-61; Figs. 5, 6, target holder 10, support frame 10, side support trim panel 58, narrowed receiving slot 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include the support structure, as taught by Huston, because then better stability and easier insertion or removal of the wall structure would have been provided.
Applicant states that the Office Action’s proposed combination of Vuagniaux, Huston and Hodge relies on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include a resistive grid or matrix, as taught by Hodge, because then more accuracy of target hitting for assessing players’ performance would have been provided. And further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wall structure, as taught by Vuagniaux, to include the support structure, as taught by Huston, because then better stability and easier insertion or removal of the wall structure would have been provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857