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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8, 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt US 8,690,715 (“Vogt”) in view of Sassi US 2012/0154595 (“Sassi”).
As per claim 1, Vogt discloses a game-court-surface projector system (apparatus 100)(Figs. 1-3 and 7; 2:62-3:49 and 4:27-5:36) comprising:
(i) a concentrating projection unit configured to focus, concentrate, amplify and direct ambient light to form structured, light-only images and court markings that visually delineate activity-specific boundaries on a game court surface (projector 100 (Figs. 1-3 and 7); with regard to “configured to project a variety of lights and court markings that solely define activity lines and boundaries”, note Figs. 1-3 in conjunction to 2:62-3:16 as the projector provides lines for marking basketball court boundaries/lines ; for example, Fig. 2 in conjunction to 3:22+” as shown in FIG. 2, dark lines 120 can be projected onto a light surface 106 (e.g., white, yellow, orange, pink, etc.) or onto a surface in a lighted area (lighted indoor room or outdoors during daylight). Alternatively, the embodiments herein can illuminate a certain region (e.g., shown as item 108 in FIG. 2) with a light color, while simultaneously illuminating contrasting dark colored lines 120”; also consider 3:46-49” Thus, additional lines of the basketball court (such as the sidelines, mid-court lines, etc.) could be illuminated by embodiments herein”; also, note Fig. 7 and 4:27-49 regarding a light supply unit for supplying light to said projector unit);
(ii) a control unit configured to receive user input selecting an activity type and to modulate by amplifying, the projection unit to project corresponding boundary images upon the game court surface ; and (iii) a control link providing communications between said projection unit and said control unit (such as computerized device 166 that provides control link and control unit to communicate and provide the desire marking upon the surface)(Fig. 7 and 4:63-5:2; as well as 5:25+”Computerized devices 166 are discussed above. Computerized devices that include chip-based central processing units (CPU's), input/output devices (including graphic user interfaces (GUI), memories, comparators, processors, etc. are well-known and readily available devices produced by manufacturers such as Dell Computers, Round Rock Tex., USA and Apple Computer Co., Cupertino Calif., USA.”).
Thus, in the broadest and most reasonable manner the examiner construed Vogt’s computerize means 166 as the control unit/control link that electronically communicates in put to the projector to project lights according to a user’s input.
If there is any doubt regarding the examiner interpretation of Vogt’s computerize devices 166 as such “a control link” and “a control unit”, as claimed, Vogt, in the embodiment of Fig. 5, discloses the use of a controller and a control link (as controller 152 connected to each light unit 100; having the CPU device, as shown in Fig. 7), and it states “Such changes between different activities can be controlled by a controller 152 connected (wired or wirelessly) to each of the lighting units 100. The controller 152 can include a processor, power supply, and computer-readable memory necessary to cause each of the lighting devices 100 to provide the correct pattern of illumination needed for the boundary lines associated with each of the different activities.”).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt’s system with a control unit and a control link as claimed for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Vogt’s suggestion to form a system with such electronic means and communication that allow easy changing of the desired variety of projected light associated with the different selected activity by a user.
Vogt is not specific regarding his projection unit is an ambient-light concentrating projection unit.
However, in the field of utilizing projecting unit to project images thereupon a surface, Sassi discloses where a light supply unit further is adapted to focusing and concentrating ambient light (Figs. 1-5; [0048], [0052], [0057] and [0061]; note for example, [0052] ”Particularly, the lens assembly 26 may be used by the projection circuitry 16 to focus light associated with the media onto the external display surface. The lens assembly 26 may also be used by the camera circuitry 18 to focus ambient light entering the device 10 onto the DMD 20”). Thus, Sassi discloses an ambient-light concentrating projection unit.
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt’s light projecting unit as an ambient-light concentrating projection unit as taught by Sassi for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Vogt’s suggestion to use any suitable light source in 4:39-49; for example” The light source 168 can be any form of illumination whether currently known or developed in the future” and “Multiple lighting elements (and a mixture of different types of lighting elements) can be used, depending upon illumination and power requirements”). Thus, such light source as taught by Sassi would have been any such suitable light source.
As per claim 3, Vogt discloses where said light supply unit further comprises an artificial light source (Fig. 7 and 4:39-49) .
As per claim 4, Vogt discloses where said projected image further comprises an image representing a basketball court (Figs. 1-3; also 2:62-64“As shown in FIG. 1, an exemplary embodiment herein is an apparatus 100 having a light source that projects lines 110 defining a foul lane and end line for a basketball court.”; 3:12-16” The embodiments herein allow such basketball court markings to be temporarily provided through the light projected lines 110, avoiding the cost and visual alteration of permanently painted or applied basketball court markings.”; 3:37-41” Therefore, the embodiments herein can be used in any environment and provide a way to temporarily define an activity area (such as the basketball court example shown in FIGS. 1-3) through illumination of lines 110/120 on a surface 106.”; and 3:44-49” Instead, the embodiments herein are applicable to all contrasting colors and illumination conditions, all activities, all surfaces, and all environments. Thus, additional lines of the basketball court (such as the sidelines, mid-court lines, etc.) could be illuminated by embodiments herein”).
As per claim 8, Vogt discloses where said projected image further comprises a virtual layout image (Figs. 1-3; layouts of basketball court boundaries; also, at least 2:62-64; 3:12-16, and 3:37-49 as mentioned above).
As per claim 14, Vogt discloses where said virtual layout image further comprises boundaries and lines for a game (Figs. 1-3; layouts of basketball court boundaries; also, at least 2:62-64; 3:12-16, and 3:37-49 as mentioned above).
As per claim 18, Vogt discloses a game-court-surface projection method (a method of using apparatus 100 to project boundary lines upon a surface to play a game, such as a basketball)(Figs. 1-3 and 7; 2:62-3:49 and 4:27-5:36) comprising:
(i) providing a game-court-surface projector (providing a projector 100/172)(Figs. 1-3 and 7; 2:62+) comprising:
(a) a light concentrating projection unit configured to focus, concentrate, amplify and direct ambient light to form structured, light-only images and court markings that visually delineate user-selected activity-specific boundaries on a game court surface (projector 100 (Figs. 1-3 and 7); with regard to “configured to project a variety of lights and court markings that solely define activity lines and boundaries”, note Figs. 1-3 in conjunction to 2:62-3:149 as the projector provides lines for marking basketball court boundaries/lines; also, note Fig. 7 and 4:27-49 regarding a light supply unit for supplying light to said projector unit);
(b) a control unit configured to receive user input selecting an activity type and to modulate by amplifying, the projection unit to project corresponding boundary images; and (c) a control link providing communications between said projection unit and said control unit (such as computerized device 166 that provides control link and control unit to communicate and provide the desire marking upon the surface)(Fig. 7 and 4:63-5:2; as well as 5:25+”Computerized devices 166 are discussed above. Computerized devices that include chip-based central processing units (CPU's), input/output devices (including graphic user interfaces (GUI), memories, comparators, processors, etc. are well-known and readily available devices produced by manufacturers such as Dell Computers, Round Rock Tex., USA and Apple Computer Co., Cupertino Calif., USA.”) (ii) selecting, using the control unit, an activity for playing on a game court surface;(iii) transmitting a signal, through the control ink, from the control unit to the projector unit corresponding to the user-selected activity;(iv) generating an image of lines and boundaries corresponding to the user-selected activity;(v) projecting said generated image upon the game court surface in response to the signal from said control unit; and(vi) changing said projected image, upon demand, by operating said control unit (via the computerized device 166 that provides control link and control unit 5:25+”Computerized devices 166 are discussed above. Computerized devices that include chip-based central processing units (CPU's), input/output devices (including graphic user interfaces (GUI), memories, comparators, processors, etc. are well-known and readily available devices produced by manufacturers such as Dell Computers, Round Rock Tex., USA and Apple Computer Co., Cupertino Calif., USA.”; the user, via computing device 166 control the projected lines upon a selected surface to represent any desire markings, boundaries, as known, (e.g., free throws, mid-court, sideline, etc.) to represent a basketball court).
With regard to the “control unit” and “control link”, as mentioned above, in the broadest and most reasonable manner the examiner construed Vogt’s computerize means 166 as the control unit/control link that electronically communicates in put to the projector to project lights according to a user’s input. However, if there is any doubt regarding the examiner interpretation of Vogt’s computerize devices 166 as such “a control link” and “a control unit”, as claimed, the examiner maintains his position that such “control link” and “control unit” would have been obvious within Vogt for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Vogt is not specific regarding his projection unit is an ambient-light concentrating projection unit.
However, in the field of utilizing projecting unit to project images thereupon a surface, Sassi discloses where a light supply unit further is adapted to focusing and concentrating ambient light (Figs. 1-5; [0048], [0052], [0057] and [0061]).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt’s light projecting unit as an ambient-light concentrating projection unit as taught by Sassi for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 19, Vogt discloses further comprising a step of selectively choosing a type of an image projected by said game-court- surface projector (choosing a basketball boundaries to be projected upon a surface via the computing device communicate with the projector)(Figs. 1-3; 2:62-3:49 in conjunction to Fig. 7 and 4:27-5:36).
As per claim 20, Vogt discloses further comprising a step of selectively choosing a type of an image projected by said game-court- surface projector to facilitate player training and practice(choosing a basketball court boundaries to be projected upon a surface via the computing device communicate with the projector, to play, train and practice shooting, dribbling, etc.)(Figs. 1-3; 2:62-3:49 in conjunction to Fig. 7 and 4:27-5:36).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt and Sassi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiune US 10,122,976 (“Fujiune”).
As per claim 5, Vogt is not specific regarding where said projected image further comprises an information display image.
However, in the field of projector systems, Fujiune discloses where a projected image further comprises an information display image (such as information image 8)(Fig. 6 and 7:54-8:2).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt’s where said projected image further comprises an information display image as taught by Fujiune for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes. In that regard, note Fujiune’s 7:64+”With this configuration, projector device 100 can present desired information to detected person 6 at a position where person 6 can easily see the information according to the motion of detected person 6, thereby being capable of surely notifying person 6 of the desired information.”
As per claim 6, Vogt is not specific regarding where said projected image further comprises a virtual object image.
However, in the field of projector systems, Fujiune discloses where a projected image further comprises a virtual object image (such as virtual object image 8)(Fig. 6 and 7:54-8:2). Therefore, 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 to form Vogt’s where said projected image further comprises a virtual object image as taught by Fujiune for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5, e.g., for displaying additional information and/or entertaining purposes.
As per claim 7, Vogt is not specific regarding where said projected image further comprises a location marker image.
However, in the field of projector systems, Fujiune discloses where a projected image further comprises a location marker image (such as a location marker 8)(Fig. 6 and 7:54-8:2).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt’s where said projected image further comprises a location marker image as taught by Fujiune for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim/s 5/6.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt, Sassi and Fujiune as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shyu et al US 2012/0038592 (“Shyu”).
As per claim 9, Vogt -Fujiune is not specific regarding where said information display image further comprises an indication of time.
However, in the field of surface projector systems, Shyu discloses where an information display image further comprises an indication of time (projection module 303 to project images to include clock, i.e., indication of time)(Fig. 2; [0029]-[0034]).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt-Fujiune’s where said information display image further comprises an indication of time as taught by Shyu for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt, Sassi and Fujiune as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Johnson US 2019/0038954 (“Johnson”).
As per claim 10, Vogt – Fujiune is not specific regarding where said information display image further comprises score information.
However, Johnson discloses where an information display image further comprises score information (score image 27)(Fig. 1; [0011]).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt- Fujiune’s where said information display image further comprises score information as taught by Johnson for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt and Fujiune as applied to claims 6-7 above, and further in view of Ristas US 2020/0179755 (“Ristas”).
As per claim 11, Vogt - Fujiune is not specific regarding where said virtual object image further comprises representation of an opposing player.
However, Ristas discloses where said virtual object image further comprises representation of an opposing player (note Fig. 1 in conjunction to [0021] and [0022] as the X spots represent defender/s (i.e., opposing player) and O an offensive player; see also [0057] and [0058] )in conjunction to Fig. 3) as the use of different colors been projected to distinguish between players positions; also note [0043]-[0044] as a full team of players to use/play).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt – Fujiune’s where said virtual object image further comprises representation of an opposing player as taught by Ristas for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes. Additionally, such player’s representation upon the modified basketball court images (as taught by Vogt ) would have been much desired to simulates a sports environment to include a displayed surface/s while allowing a user to interact with such display information, for skills as well as recreational.
As per claim 12, Vogt - Fujiune is not specific regarding where said virtual object image further comprises representation of an obstacle.
However, Ristas discloses where said virtual object image further comprises representation of an obstacle (construed any one of the virtual defensive spots X as such obstacle, obstruction, hurdle, difficulty and etc. that an offensive player (i.e., O) needs to overcome in Fig. 1 and [0021] and [0022]). Therefore, 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 to form Vogt - Fujiune’s where said virtual object image further comprises representation of an obstacle as taught by Ristas for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 11.
As per claim 13, Vogt - Fujiune is not specific regarding where said location marker image further comprises an indication of a location from which to make a shot.
However, Ristas discloses where said location marker image further comprises an indication of a location from which to make a shot (spot 32e)(Fig. 1; in conjunction to at least [0019], [0021] and [0024]). Therefore, 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 to form Vogt – Fujiune’s where said location marker image further comprises an indication of a location from which to make a shot as taught by Ristas for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 11.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt and Sassi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ristas.
As per claim 15, Vogt is not specific regarding where said projected image further comprises a changing image.
However, Ristas discloses where said projected image further comprises a changing image (construed such changing as the changing between O spots and the X spots in Fig. 1 (again note [0021]-[0026] as the use of the projecting of the O and X as changing/moving spots upon the playing surface). Therefore, 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 to form Vogt ‘s where said projected image further comprises a changing image as taught by Ristas for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 11.
As per claim 16, Vogt is not specific regarding where said projected image further comprises changeable images corresponding to a number of participating players.
However, Ristas discloses, where said projected image further comprises changeable images corresponding to a number of participating players, (the examiner construed such changing as the changing between O spots and the X spots in Fig. 1 (again note [0021]-[0026] as the use of the projecting of the O and X as changing/moving spots upon the playing surface). Also, note [0043] as the system is suitable for group of training). Therefore, 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 to form Vogt ‘s where said projected image further comprises changeable images corresponding to a number of participating players as taught by Ristas for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 11.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 101716015 B1 (hereinafter refer as “KR”) .
As per claim 17, Vogt is not specific regarding where said projected image further comprises changeable images corresponding to passage of time.
However, in the field of utilizing projector systems, KR discloses where a projected image further comprises changeable images corresponding to passage of time (the images is changing as time passes, as shown for example in Figs. 7a-7c, as the image changed as time elapses corresponding to time passes as a virtual view of user’s activity; in this case corresponding to moving speed of a user’s walking; see also at least page 5,10th par.-page 6, 7th par. of the machine translation).
Therefore, 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 to form Vogt’s where said projected image further comprises changeable images corresponding to passage of time as taught by KR for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, 8, 14 and 18-20 (remarks pages 10-16)
Applicant argued that the combination of Vogt- Sassi, with respect to the “an ambient-light concentrating projection unit” means is not permissible because the photographic device, is not analogous art to the claimed boundary lines crating projector. In this section applicant also argued that Sassi is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed projector and the examiner reasoning to combine with Vogt is hindsight reconstruction with applicant’s disclosure serving as a blueprint.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First and foremost, applicant claimed is related to a projector device, and thus Sassi is analogues to the claimed invention as a projector device suitable to project images upon a surface utilizing a light source. As it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as mentioned above, the references deal with a projector device suitable to project images upon a surface.
Second, with respect to the motivation to combine Vogt with Sassi, it is also noted that it has been held that the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references. The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”
In this case, as stated by the examiner, according to the explicit teachings of Vogt and Sassi, it is clear that modifying the projector of Vogt according to the
teachings of Sassi, would have resulted in an projector means that utilizes any form of illumination (for example as an ambient-light concentrating projection unit as taught by Sassi, which is a known light means that would have been a suitable light source ; e.g. Vogt’s 4:39-49 ) configure to project images upon a surface (in this case, basketball boundaries as taught by Vogt). Contradicting to applicant’s own conclusions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the modified Vogt by the teachings of Sassi is fully capable to project basketball’s court boundary lines upon a surface, utilizing a known ambient-light concentrating means/source with the projection unit, without changing its principle operations of a projector projecting images (e.g., basketball boundaries) upon a surface.
Lastly, with respect to applicant's arguments that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As discussed above, the use of an ambient-light concentrating projection unit is well known as taught by Sassi, and the examiner maintains his position that modifying Vogt according to the teachings of Sassi would have been obvious as using a known illumination means within the projector, as set forth above, and not knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.
With respect to claims 5-7 (remarks page 16).
Applicant discussed Vogt uses external power source and thus the combination of Vogt- Fujiune will not produce the invention of claims 5-7. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 5-7 merely recites “information display image” (claim 5), “virtual image” (claim 6) and “marker image”(claim 7), which all images are taught by Fujiune as set forth above. The examiner maintains his position that modifying Vogt to display any of such images of claims 5-7 would have been an obvious use of a known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Vogt’s projector device, electronically connected to computer means, capable to display any desire images upon the surface, as Vogt states” The apparatus 100 can include a self-contained power source 162 positioned within the housing 172 or a power unit 162 connected to an external power source through a power connection 170, as well as a non-transitory computerized device/memory 166 capable of storing and displaying multiple images” (4:63+)
With respect to claim 9 (remarks pages 17-18).
Applicant discussed the reference to Shyu and concluded that the proposed combination does not render claim 9 obvious. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as argued above, applicant claimed invention is related to a projector device, and similar to Sassi, Shyu is a projector means that is analogues to the claimed invention because it is within the field of projecting device configure to project and display images upon a surface.
Second, as set forth above, Shyu display images related to time (projection module 303 to project images to include clock, i.e., indication of time)(Fig. 2; [0029]-[0034]). Thus, contradicting to applicant’s own conclusions the modified Vogt – Shyu includes all the limitations of claim 9. The examiner maintains his position that the proposed combination of Vogt - Shyu would have been obvious as use a known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes. As mentioned above, the projector device-to-computer means of Vogt is fully capable to display any suitable images upon a surface.
With respect to claim 10 (remarks pages 18-20)
Applicant discussed the reference to Johnson and concluded “As Examiner admitted, the primary reference of Vogt, similarly, fails to teach a projector capable of projecting a display image upon the court surface. The tertiary reference of Johnson also fails to teach such feature.”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as argued above, applicant claimed invention is related to a projector device, and similar to Sassi, Johnson is a projector means that is analogues to the claimed invention because it is within the field of projecting device configure to project and display images upon a surface.
Second, as set forth above, Johnson display images related to score (score image 27)(Fig. 1; [0011]). Thus, contradicting to applicant’s own conclusions the modified Vogt – Johnson includes the limitations of claim 10. The examiner maintains his position that the proposed combination of Vogt - Johnson would have been obvious as use a known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes. As mentioned above, the projector device-to-computer means of Vogt is fully capable to display any suitable images upon a surface.
With respect to claims 11-13 (remarks pages 20-22)
Applicant discussed the reference to Ristas and concluded that Ristas is not concerned with creating court markings and Vogt system will have to be completely re-designed, as well as the examiner uses applicant’s disclosure to serves as a blueprint for selected features from the tertiary.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as argued above, applicant claimed invention is related to a projector device, and similar to Sassi, Ristas is a projector means that is analogues to the claimed invention because it is within the field of projecting device configure to project and display images upon a surface.
Second, as set forth above, Ristas display images related to opposing players, obstacle and alike (note Fig. 1 in conjunction to [0021] and [0022] as the X spots represent defender/s (i.e., opposing player) and O an offensive player; see also [0057] and [0058] )in conjunction to Fig. 3) as the use of different colors been projected to distinguish between players positions; also note [0043]-[0044] as a full team of players to use/play of Ristas). Thus, contradicting to applicant’s own conclusions the modified Vogt – Johnson includes the limitations of claims 11-13. As mentioned above, the projector device-to-computer means of Vogt is fully capable to display any suitable images upon a surface.
Furthermore, it is unclear how projecting different type of images within the modified Vogt’s projector, as for example “obstacle”, “opposing player”, and etc. would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that Vogt need to be completely re-designed, it does not. In fact one of ordinary skill in the art, according to the teachings of Vogt would have appreciated that any images (for example “opposing player”, “obstacle”) can be projected by the projector device of Vogt, as discussed in at least 4:44+ “ Further, the light source 168 can be an illuminating element that makes a pattern on its own, such as one or more lasers, which can (through rapid movement of the light beam) create a programmed desired image “ And “The apparatus 100 can include a self-contained power source 162 positioned within the housing 172 or a power unit 162 connected to an external power source through a power connection 170, as well as a non-transitory computerized device/memory 166 capable of storing and displaying multiple images” (4:63+).
The examiner maintains his position that the proposed combination of Vogt - Ristas would have been obvious as use a known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes.
Lastly, with respect to applicant's arguments that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. As discussed above the use of an projection unit suitable to display different images upon a surface is well known as taught by Ristas, and the examiner maintains his position that modifying Vogt according to the teachings of Ristas would have been obvious as to display such images for information, entertainment, and/or for play and practice proposes as discussed above.
With respect to claims 15 and 16 (remarks pages 22-23)
Applicant once again argued that combining the reference to Ristas, as proposed by the examiner would have not been obvious. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains his position that the combine Vogt -Ristas discloses all the structure claimed, namely the type of images to be displayed, as taught by Ristas and as argued above and as set forth in the rejection above (section 9). As no other arguments to the combination Vogt -Ristas, that was not already addressed by the examiner, the examiner, furthermore, asserts that it would have been obvious to combine Vogt with Ristas to arrive at the claimed invention for the same reasons discussed above.
With respect to claim 17 (remarks pages 23-26)
Applicant argued that KR is not specific regarding changeable images corresponding to time. Applicant also argued that combining Vogt with KR will require drastic modification to Vogt that will change its principal operations.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First as cited by applicant, KR in the embodiment of Fig. 7 discussed virtual images that configure to change overtime, such citation, by itself, is enough to read on the claimed limitation of claim 17, as images are changing over passage of time.
Second, note Fig. 7 as reproduce hereinafter, which clearly show different images, in corresponding to passage of time
PNG
media_image1.png
807
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, such images shown by KR are drawings that can be relied upon as relevant prior art as per MPEP 2125, Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).
Accordingly, KR entire disclosure (to include the drawings) are projected images that are changed during time, and read on the limitations of claim 17.
Furthermore, it is unclear how projecting different type of images within the modified Vogt’s projector, as for example images that changes during passage of time, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that Vogt need to be completely re-designed, it does not. In fact one of ordinary skill in the art, according to the teachings of Vogt ,would have appreciated that any images can be projected by the projector device of Vogt as discussed in at least 4:44+.
The examiner maintains his position that the proposed combination of Vogt - KR would have been obvious as use a known technology to display information thus to enhance the use of Vogt’s projector to further provides virtual object images for a desired information during the paly/game as well as for entertainment purposes.
Conclusion
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 AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 11/4/2025 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711