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 (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the RCE and amendment filed January 23, 2025. Claims 1-8, 11, 13-17, and 22-27 are pending, claims 1-8, 11, and 13-17 have been amended, and claims 9, 10, 12, 18-21 have been canceled, and claims 22-27 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 23, 2025 is in not in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR §§ 1.97 & 1.98. Copies of several of the referenced NPL documents listed in the IDS were not submitted with the response. Accordingly, the items lined out documents listed in the IDS have not been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the geographic information system and external computer must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 § CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the presence” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “said performance” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 also contains the trademark/trade names Zigbee® and Bluetooth®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a wireless connection technology and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 24, 26, and 27 recite “the layers being sown, adhered or woven into leather, plastic, textile and/or rubber of the ball's assembly using one or more of a smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping.” The specification demonstrates how layers may be sown and woven into leather, plastic, textile and/or rubber of the ball's assembly using one or more of a smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping. However, it is unclear how the smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping may be used to adhere the layers into leather, plastic, textile and/or rubber of the ball's assembly. Presumably the property of adhering (i.e., to stick to) would be provided by an adhesive that is combined with smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping that would adhere the layer into leather, plastic, textile and/or rubber of the ball's assembly and not the smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping itself. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 24-26 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2010/027444 by Stumpf (“Stumpf”).
In re claim 1, Stumpf discloses an artifact of professional sports equipment integrated with an electronic device comprising a flexible layer of computing, communication, sensor and/or battery components formed in one or more of a smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping [Figs. 24-33, ¶¶5, 67-68, 71, 124, 146, among others, describes thin transducer matrix films which may be formed on flexible substrate in woven forms. The film may be incorporated into sporting equipment. The equipment is capable of being used by professional athletes and in professional sports], wherein said electronic device is capable of conveying the artifact's 'three-dimensional shape an relative position within a field of play to an external computer, without relying on line-of-sight distance reference data [¶¶84, 139, 98, 99, 145-148, 150-157, 178, among others, describes the film may be used to determine objection location within a field of play and general shape and contact point geometry of objects as the sensed information may be transmitted wirelessly it may be used for officiating without line of sight based on sensed position of object], and wherein the layer is accommodated in the artifact in a manner that does not alter predetermined weight, balance and performance requirements of the artifact [¶¶83, 146, 148, 174, among others, describes use of a thin film. The film may be integrated in a ball during manufacture along the entire interior surface and use inertial power as the it is incorporated during manufacture the balls weight, balance and performance requirements of the artifact are predetermined and not altered. In addition, the layer (i.e., a thin film would not affect weight, balance and performance requirements of the artifact, such as backboard or rim for basketball, or even a ball when applied evenly over the entire surface from being about to be thrown and/or bounced].
In re claim 2, Stumpf discloses a professional athlete's attire [Figs. 14, 15, 16, ¶127, among others, describes use in garments, footwear, and attire. The attire may be worn by a professional athletes (or any adult human)].
In re claim 3, Stumpf discloses a professional sports field of play [Fig. 26, ¶¶146, 149, among others, describes a basketball court. The court is capable of having professional basketball played thereon].
In re claim 4, Stumpf discloses object of professional sports play being a soccer ball, an American football, a tennis ball, a basketball, a baseball, or a cricket ball [Fig. 24 shows basketball. Fig. 30 shows baseball, ¶146 these balls a capable of being used to play professional sports].
In re claim 5, Stumpf discloses a constituent of a professional sports field of play being a netting, a goal post, a field marker or a corner marker [¶¶149,152, among others, describe field marker].
In re claim 7, Stumpf discloses the electronic device or its parts comprise one or more sensors [¶¶67,73, 146, 150, among others, describe sensors].
In re claim 8, Stumpf discloses wherein said one or more sensors is capable of sensing the presence of at least one second artifact of sports equipment [Fig. 25 backboard is capable of sensing ball in Fig. 24].
In re claim 11, Stumpf discloses wherein said smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping is formed inside layers of the artifact [¶¶146, 147, among others, describes transducer film (smart computing weave) may be for on interior surface of ball].
In re claim 13, Stumpf discloses said smart computing yarn, smart computing weave or smart computing piping is cast, inserted, or adhered to layers inside or outside of the artifact [¶¶146,147, among others, describes transducer film (smart computing weave) may be integrated in, formed on interior surface of ball].
In re claim 14, Stumpf discloses said electronic device comprises a wireless data communication device [¶¶71,84, 127, 145 describes wireless communication of data from film].
In re claim 16, Stumpf discloses the electronic device comprises computer boards and/or communication devices woven from the smart computing weave [¶¶65-71, among others, describe thin flexible film may be woven to form computer circuits and communication devices].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf in view of US Publication No. 2016/0202755 by Connor (“Connor”).
In re claim 6, Stumpf lacks, but Connor teaches wherein said smart computing yarn forms threading for layers and/or parts of the artifact [Figs. 23-24, ¶¶154-155, 170-17,330, 331, among others, describe a smart yarn form parts of attire for sports analysis].
Stumpf and Connor are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of smart garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment of Stumpf and include the smart computing yarn, as taught by Connor, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, provide improved and varied analysis of motion of user’s body, see, e.g., ¶¶5, 10-16.
In re claim 15, Stumpf lacks, but Connor teaches wherein the electronic device comprises conductive circuitry woven from the smart computing yarn [Figs. 23-24, ¶¶154-155, 170-17,330, 331, among others, describe a conductive smart yarn woven to form parts of attire for sports analysis].
Stumpf and Connor are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of smart garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment of Stumpf and include the smart computing yarn, as taught by Connor, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, provide improved and varied analysis of motion of user’s body, see, e.g., ¶¶5, 10-16.
Claim 17 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Stumpf in view of Published Article titled “Advanced Functional Fiber and Smart Textile” by Shi et al. (“Shi”).
In re claim 17, Stumpf discloses said electronic device comprises batteries [¶¶12, 139,147,174]. Stumpf doesn’t explicitly disclose the electronic device comprises thin batteries making up a smart piping.
However, Shi teaches electronic device comprises of thin batteries making up a smart piping [See Abstract and Fig. 8 shows all Fiber LIB power source/battery].
Stumpf and Shi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of smart garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment of Stumpf and include the all-fiber LIB power source, as taught by Shi, in order to provide power device to be woven into the fabric in a safe manner, see, e.g., p. 13, last paragraph, and as Stumpf states the film may be powered by any number of different power sources, ¶12.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf in view of US Publication No. 2005/0202905 by Chesser (“Chesser”).
In re claim 23, Stumpf discloses a system for 3D shape data capture and conveyance in the professional sports performance, without relying on line-of-sight distance reference data, the 3D shape data to be utilized for officiating and analyses of said performance [¶¶84, 98, 99, 139, 145-148, 150-157, 178], wherein the system comprises interdependent artifacts of professional sports equipment [Figs 24-27], each artifact assigned and tracked with an individual identifier [¶¶66, 84, 89, 97 154], wherein the system is configured to wirelessly collect in real-time 3D cartesian data to capture 3D shape and relative position, within a 3D field's spatial delimiters, of each artifact of professional sports equipment, and transmit in real-time the collected 3D cartesian data to an external computer, via technology selected from one or a combination of RFID, Bluetooth, the internet, GPS, and Zigbee [¶¶71, 98-100, 139, 146-158, 178], and wherein each artifact of sports equipment comprises flexible layers made from computational, electronic sensing, communication and energy storage layers formed in one or more of a smart computing yarn, smart computing weave and smart computing piping embedded in the artifact of sports equipment and enabling collection of the 3D cartesian data by the geographic information system, wherein the flexible layers are embedded in the artifact in a manner that does not alter predetermined weight, balance and performance requirements of the artifact [Figs. 24-33, ¶¶5, 67-68, 71, 83, 124, 146, 148, 174, among others, describes thin transducer matrix films which may be formed on flexible substrate in woven forms. The film may be incorporated into sporting equipment. The film may be integrated in a ball during manufacture along the entire interior surface and use inertial power as the it is incorporated during manufacture the balls weight, balance and performance requirements of the artifact are predetermined and not altered. In addition, the layer (i.e., a thin film would not affect weight, balance and performance requirements of the artifact, such as backboard or rim for basketball, or even a ball when applied evenly over the entire surface from being about to be thrown and/or bounced].
Stumpf does not specifically teach the use of a geographic information system to collect positional data.
However, Chesser use of a geographic information system to collect data for sporting events transmitted by sports equipment including mapping 3D data of multiple elements in a sports field of play [¶¶11-20].
Stumpf and Chesser are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sport equipment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Stumpf to include a geographic information system to collect and map data, as taught by Chesser, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing better officiating, sports commentary, analysis and simulation, see, e.g., ¶¶5-10, 12, 15, 18 . In addition, Applicant’s own specification notes that GIS technology is a well know art and is specifically designed to overcome the spatial or cartesian data capturing limitations of older positioning technologies such as RFID and GPS.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Stumpf in view of Chesser and further in view of Connor.
In re claim 25, Stumpf teaches the artifacts of sports equipment is an element of a garment which is woven and stitched with the one or more of a smart computing yarn and smart computing weave [Figs. 14, 15, 16, ¶¶5, 67-68, 71, 124, 127, 146, among others, describes thin transducer matrix films which may be formed on flexible substrate layer in woven forms. The film may be incorporated into a layer of sporting equipment including garments, footwear, and attire. The attire may be worn by a professional athlete (or any adult human)].
However, Stumpf does not explicitly teach the garment is a professional uniform.
Connor teaches [Figs. 23-24, ¶¶154-155, 170-17,330, 331, among others, describe a smart yarn that forms a part of a uniform, the uniform may be worn by professional athletes (or any adult human)].
Stumpf and Connor are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of smart garments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the garment of Stumpf and include the smart computing yarn in a uniform, as taught by Connor, in order to provide a better user experience, for example, provide improved and varied analysis of motion of user’s body, see, e.g., ¶¶5, 10-16. In addition, this recitation is an intended use of the artifact, which does not further limit the structure of the claim with regard to prior art. A recitation of 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. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record does not anticipate or obviate the following recitations the flexible layers made from computational, electronic sensing, communication and energy storage layers that are in a shape of the ball's cutting patterns, the layers being sown, adhered or woven into leather, plastic, textile and/or rubber of the ball's assembly using the one or more of a smart computing yarn, smart computing weave and smart computing piping.
Claims 22 and 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 26 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
The objection to the specification under 35 USC Section 132(a) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 11 and 13-17 under 35 USC Section 112(a) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 11 and 13-17 under 35 USC Section 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments; however, new rejections under35 USC Section 112(b) have been made as explained above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the anticipation and obviousness of claims 1-7, 11 and 13-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715