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 Objections
Claim1 objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the term “the user” (line 6) and “a user” (line 19). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 2, further clarification is require regarding what applicant consider “at a predetermined height”. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1, whereas claim 1 defines a height as “a knee-height of the user” (line 6).
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) 1-2, 5, 8-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antunes US 2016/0367847 (“Antunes”) in view of Yu et al US 2017/0113096 (“Yu”) and Sauerbrey US 5,005,828 (“Sauerbrey”).
As per claim 1, Antunes discloses a sensor-operated training system to train a player or user (apparatus 100)(Figs. 1-4; paragraphs [0015]-[0030] and [0036]-[0059]), the system comprising :a base unit and a satellite unit providing upright support to the system on a flat surface and positioned a predetermined distance apart (first support unit 102 and second support unit 104)(Figs. 1-3B; [0038]-[0040]),
each of the base unit and the satellite unit comprising a leg portion adjustable in a vertical direction to correspond to a knee height of the user (via adjustment mechanism 120/adjustment slots 122)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0038]), the base unit (support 104) comprising: a base sensor including a receiver to receive signals from the satellite unit (light receiver 108)(Fig. 3A; [0044]+); a digital counter configured to count a number of times the signal is interrupted (construed as transceiver 134 to communicate with electronic device to provide data, i.e., count the number of times the transmitted light/signal thereof interrupted)(Figs. 3A and 4; [0044]-[0046] and [0051]-[0052]);
the satellite unit (support 102) further comprising a satellite sensor including a transmitter configured to continuously transmit an signal to the receiver of the base unit when the system is in operation (light source 130 transmitted to light receiver 130 of base unit (104)(Fig. 3A; [0044]-[0046], and [0055]-[0058]); the infrared signal defines a signal path extending between the satellite unit and the base unit, wherein the base sensor is configured to detect an interruption in the infrared signal caused by a user and in response, the base unit is configured to generate a notification alert to alert indicating an error (the virtual barrier/s 106 defines a signal path between the first support unit 102 and second support unit 104 (i.e., satellite and base units), Figs. , 3A and 3B; and upon interruption thereof a notification alert would have indicated an error ([0039], [0040], [0051] and [0052]; for example [0052] ”The status identifiers then relays to the electronic device 200 how many of the light sources were crossed by the athlete, with it being desirable that no lights are triggered. The status indicators may comprise visual, audio, audiovisual, and/or tactile qualities to enable an individual (i.e. a coach) to an athlete's performance”).
With respect to the device as “A sensor-operated basketball training system to train a player or user” as recites in the preamble, it is noted that preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and
Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Also, with respect to the operation, function of the device as “interruption caused by a user or a basketball during a crossover dribble beneath the signal path”, as set forth in the previous office action “as the court held while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function; manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does; see Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” Accordingly, the examiner maintains position that the applied prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed since it includes all the structural claimed limitations.
Antunes is not specific regarding a base proximity sensor configured to detect when the user is within a predetermined distance of the base unit and a retractable drawstring extendable from the base unit to the satellite unit in parallel with the signal being transmitted.
Antunes is not specific regarding the transmitted signal is an infrared signal.
With respect to a proximity sensor, Yu discloses a training and tracking system for athletes utilizing a proximity sensor (610)(Fig. 6; [0041]-[0049]).
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 Antunes’ with a proximity sensor as taught by Yu as use of a known technology to track an athlete performances and provide data thereof. Such additional performances data would have been much desired with the device of Antunes while his electronic device provides performances data (e.g. [0059]).
With respect to retractable drawstring, Sauerbrey discloses the use of ribbon 16 (i.e., a drawstring) between units (standards 12 and 14) parallel to ray of beams (Fig. 9 and 7:20-8:25) connected thereto via brackets 54 and 56 and respective keeper 48 (Figs. 7 and 8; 7:9-31).
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 Antunes’ with a retractable drawstring as taught by Sauerbrey merely as providing a simple substitution for one known element (Antunes’ barrier 126) for another (Sauerbrey’s retractable drawstring) as the barrier placed between two supports while athlete performing sport activities in relation to the barrier.
With respect to the signal as an infrared signal, as Antunes states that his light source can be any known light source ([0055]), it would have been obvious to use such known infrared signal merely as an obvious engineering choice that would have not changed the nature of the signal to be continuously transmitted.
As per claim 2, with respect to wherein the infrared signal is a laser signal transmitted in a horizontal path at a predetermined height between the satellite unit and the base unit, note Antunes’s Figs. 1, 3A and 3B [0045]+ as the laser light transmitter means (e.g., [0055]). Within the modified Antunes such signal would have been infrared signal.
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the base unit further comprises: a memory to store data received from a timer and the digital counter ;a display configured to display the data; a controller configured to control operation of the base unit and communicate with and send instructions to the timer, the digital counter and the base sensor; a power supply unit configured to supply power to the base unit; and a notification unit configured to generate the notification alert to notify the user when the user interferes with the infrared signal being transmitted from the satellite unit; wherein the memory further stores user-specific performance data over time for review and analysis, note Antunes’s Fig. 3A [0044] regarding the power supply 136; note Fig. 4 and [0050]+ as the electronic device 200 is a smart phone, PDA, and etc. ([0050]) which inherently includes all of such components as claimed; and once again note Fig. 3A in conjunction to [0052] as the interruption of the signal provides a status indicator ( Fig. 4; [0052]). Also, note Yu’s Fig. 7 and 54+ as a smart phone includes all of such components. Although Antunes’ components of the electronic device are not within the base unit, such modification would have been merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, as it has been held that a device with separate components can perform equally the same while the component are “integral”; see In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). 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 Antunes’s base unit further comprises: a memory to store data received from a timer and the digital counter ;a display configured to display the data; a controller configured to control operation of the base unit and communicate with and send instructions to the timer, the digital counter and the base sensor; a power supply unit configured to supply power to the base unit; and a notification unit for the reason discussed above (e.g., as an obvious engineering choice as the device with separate components can perform equally well as such). With respect to the “user or basketball interferes with the infrared signal”, note the examiner discussion above with respect to claim 1 e.g., “claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the satellite unit further comprises: a controller configured to control operation of the satellite unit; and a power supply configured to supply power to the satellite unit, note Antunes’ Fig. 3A and [0044] regarding power source 136 and printed circuit board 138; with respect to wherein the transmitter continuously emits the infrared signal during operation of the system, note Antunes’s Figs. 1, 3A and 3B [0045]+ as the laser light transmitter means (e.g., [0055]). Within the modified Antunes such signal would have been infrared signal.
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein the base sensor is configured to detect an interruption of the infrared signal by the user, wherein in response to the detection of the interruption, the controller sends a signal to the digital counter and a signal to the notification unit to generate the notification alert to the user, note Antunes whereas the virtual barrier/s 106 defines a signal path between the first support unit 102 and second support unit 104 (i.e., satellite and base units) (Figs. , 3A and 3B); and upon interruption thereof a notification alert would have indicated an error ([0039], [0040], [0051] and [0052]; for example [0052] ”The status identifiers then relays to the electronic device 200 how many of the light sources were crossed by the athlete, with it being desirable that no lights are triggered. The status indicators may comprise visual, audio, audiovisual, and/or tactile qualities to enable an individual (i.e. a coach) to an athlete's performance”).
With respect to in proximity to the retractable drawstring, note Sauerbrey’s Fig. 1. 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 Antunes’s in proximity to the retractable drawstring for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to “interruption of the infrared signal by the user or the basketball during the crossover dribble occurring beneath the signal path and lower than the infrared signal, the crossover dribble occurring from one side to another side and in between the legs and back of the user”, as mentioned above, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. The examiner maintains his position that the structure of the prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed since it includes all the structural limitations claimed.
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein the base sensor is configured to detect interruptions of the infrared signal caused by the user and in response to the detection of the interruption, the controller sends a signal to the digital counter and a signal to the notification unit to generate a notification alert to the user, note Antunes whereas the virtual barrier/s 106 defines a signal path between the first support unit 102 and second support unit 104 (i.e., satellite and base units) (Figs. , 3A and 3B); and upon interruption thereof a notification alert would have indicated an error ([0039], [0040], [0051] and [0052].
With respect to the retractable drawstring, note Sauerbrey’s Fig. 1. 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 Antunes’s with the retractable drawstring for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to the function of the device as “interruptions of the infrared signal caused by the user or the basketball during the crossover dribble occurring beneath the signal path and lower than the retractable drawstring; wherein the retractable drawstring is positioned to provide a visual and tactile dribble height cue aligned with the infrared signal and in response to the detection of the interruption”, as discussed above , the examiner maintains his position that the structure of the prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed since it includes all the structural limitations claimed.
As per claim 12, Antunes discloses wherein the system further comprises a remote control unit configured to send a signal to the controller of the base unit to send instructions to the timer and the counter to stop ongoing operation thereof at user's selection, wherein the remote control unit is further configured to wirelessly communicate with the base unit via a wireless network, and further configured to reset stored session data on command (electronic device 200; which also includes a rest 218)(Fig. 4; [0050]-[0053])..
As per claim 13, with respect to wherein if the user selects to restart via the remote control unit, the data from the timer and digital counter are reset to zero to restart timing and counting operations, respectively, and the system resumes signal monitoring and performance tracking without manual repositioning, such limitations amount to mere functionality, that the electronic device of Antunes and/or Antunes- Yu is fully capable of while a restart occurs. As set forth above, the examiner maintains his position that the structure of the prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed since it includes all the structural limitations claimed.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antunes, Yu and Sauerbrey as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Thompson et al US 2009/0170640 (“Thompson”).
As per claim 6, the modified Antunes by at least the teachings of Yu is not specific regarding when the user is within close proximity of the base unit, the controller sends instructions to the timer and the counter to stop without user input. However, in a field of training systems, Thompson discloses a proximity sensor (17) electronically coupled with a timer (15) as the sensor configure to stop the timer as the proximity sensor activated (i.e., sense a user in close proximity to the training system)(Figs. 3 and 4, and paragraphs [0011], [0023]-[0025], [0030] and [0031] in conjunction to training system 1 (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2); also see claims 9, 10, 20 and 23 as the proximity sensor to automatically stop the timer, i.e., “to stop without user input”..
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 the modified Antunes’ when the user is within close proximity of the base unit, the controller sends instructions to the timer and the counter to stop without user input for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Thompson’s sexplicit suggestion to use a proximity sensor to stop a timer to improve athletic skills (in [0008] “The inventions disclosed and taught herein are directed to an improved method and system for practicing athletic skills.” and [0011] ”The timer may, for example, be adapted to start when a ball leaves at least one of the ball exits and stop when the ball triggers the proximity sensor”).
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein the base unit further comprises a reset switch to reset the timer, counter, and the information displayed at the display, wherein the reset switch maybe activated manually or via a remote control interface, note Antunes’ Fig. 4 and [0053], regarding reset button 218.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, and 17-20 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first stated “In particular, Antunes does not teach or suggest a base unit and a satellite unit positioned a predetermined distance apart and each having a leg portion adjustable in a vertical direction to correspond to a knee-height of a user, nor does it disclose a continuously transmitted infrared signal defining a signal path between two upright units. Instead, Antunes focuses on sensing athlete movement or positioning within a training environment, without real-time beam interruption detection during crossover dribbling (see, for example, Figs. 1-2 of Antunes). Antunes further fails to disclose a retractable drawstring extending in parallel with a transmitted signal or a system configured to generate an immediate notification alert in response to signal interruptions caused by a basketball during a crossover dribble beneath a signal path. (remarks pages 10 and 11).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth above, Antunes discloses and suggests an athlete device that included a first support unit 102 and second support unit 104, i.e., two uprights (Figs. 1-3B; [0038]-[0040]), each having a predetermine height, i.e., a knee-height of a user (via adjustment mechanism 120/adjustment slots 122)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0038]). The device of Antunes, further, includes virtual barrier/s 106 defines a signal path between the first support unit 102 and second support unit 104 (i.e., satellite and base units), Figs. , 3A and 3B; and upon interruption thereof a notification alert would have indicated an error ([0039], [0040], [0051] and [0052]; for example [0052] ”The status identifiers then relays to the electronic device 200 how many of the light sources were crossed by the athlete, with it being desirable that no lights are triggered. The status indicators may comprise visual, audio, audiovisual, and/or tactile qualities to enable an individual (i.e. a coach) to an athlete's performance”). Thus, the device of Antunes includes the structure claimed (e.g., adjustable uprights and continuously transmitted a signal (e.g., an infrared signal) and indication, alert, would have indicate interruption thereof as set forth above).
The examiner acknowledged that Antunes is not specific regarding a retractable drawstring, as such means are taught by Sauerbrey. To that end, it is noted that it has been held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the examiner maintains his position that the prior art Antunes and Sauerbrey includes a retractable drawstring as set forth above.
With respect to the operation, function of the device as “interruption caused by a user or a basketball during a crossover dribble beneath the signal path”, as mentioned above, with respect to at least claim 1, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. The examiner maintains his position that the structure of the prior art is fully capable to perform as claimed since it includes all the structural limitations claimed.
Thereafter, remarks page11, applicant referred to the Yu reference to argue that Yu is not specific regarding, two adjustable uprights, continues signal, base unit and satellite unit, a retractable drawstring, and etc. However, all of these elements are taught by the references to Antunes and Sauerbrey (regrading retractable drawstring), whereas, Yu was cited to show a proximity sensor, nothing more. Again, as mentioned above, applicant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Applicant concluded (remarks page 12), “The Applicant asserts that even if all cited references were assumed to be in the same field, there is no articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would combine the foregoing references to arrive at a non-wearable, real-time beam-interruption, base and satellite units type training device. Accordingly, even when considered together, Antunes, Yu, and Sauerbrey fail to disclose or suggest the specific structural configuration and functional operation of amended claim 1, as none of the references teach or contemplate a vertically adjustable, spaced-apart base and satellite unit system using a continuous infrared signal path intentionally interrupted during crossover dribble training to provide real-time error feedback.”.
First, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Antunes device is “a non-wearable, real-time beam-interruption, base and satellite units type training device”, and the proposed modification of the references to Yu and Sauerbrey, has nothing to do with such.
Second, as mentioned above, modifying Antunes to include a proximity sensor (as taught by Yu) and a retractable drawstring (as taught by Sauerbrey) would have resulted in enhance device that is suitable to provide an athlete feedback regarding his performances. To that end, as it has been held 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)”
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 3/17/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711