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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 6/12/2025 wherein the examiner acknowledges that original claims 1-9 have been canceled and new claims 10-11 have been added. Consequently, claims 10-11 are currently pending.
Specification
The amendment filed 1/21/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Amendments to specification on page 1 adds “This is accomplished by first redesigning the frame which houses, and separates, the scoring pieces of an electronic dartboard. The second modification involves changing how the scoring pieces are held in place, and prevented from falling out of the dartboard. The solution we have come up with will accomplish both goals, and make electronic dartboards far more accurate and reliable.” Which is not supported by the original disclosure.
Amendments to specification on pages 2-3 adds “Figure 2 illustrates a variation of the dartboard in figure 1, with the width of the circular and straight borders of the frame being approximately 1/3 the width of the those in the dartboard shown in figure 1, according to the embodiment of the invention”; “Figure 2 illustrates a variation of the dartboard in figure 1, with the width of the circular and straight borders of the frame being approximately 1/3 the width of the those in the dartboard shown in figure 1, according to the embodiment of the invention.”; “Figure 3 illustrates the view of a section of the actual dartboard frame, without the scoring pieces inserted, that has been produced, with the thin borders (<1 mm thick) which are in the shape of an inverted "v", allowing the darts to slide into one of the scoring areas on either side of
the border, according to the embodiment of the invention.”; “Figure 4 illustrates a view of the back of the actual scoring pieces that have been produced, with alternating protruding tabs that overlap the frame from behind and hold the pieces in place,
preventing them from falling out of the frame, according to the embodiment of the
invention.”; “Figure 5 illustrates a front view of the actual frame with the scoring pieces inserted, according to the embodiment of the invention.” ; “Figure 6 illustrates a view of the back of the actual frame with the scoring pieces inserted, showing how the alternating protruding tabs on each piece overlap the frame from behind and hold
the pieces in place, preventing them from falling out of the frame, according to the
embodiment of the invention.” ; “Figure 7 illustrates a typical cork dartboard that has been around for centuries, and is used when throwing traditional steel-tipped darts.” Which are also not supported by the original disclosure.
Amendments to specification on pages 8-9 adds “Our solution is to reduce the width of, and redesign, the entire frame, which consists of all the straight and circular borders that separate each of the scoring pieces, so that the number of darts that bounce off the frame will be drastically reduced. Replacement Figure 2 is a modification Figure 1, showing how the dartboard would look when the borders between the scoring pieces are thinned out. In addition to the borders being much thinner, the surface area of each border has been redesigned to further reduce the chances that darts will bounce off the borders, and not register a score. The faces of the thinner borders are in the shape of an elongated, inverted "v", with a slanted surface on either side of the border, similar to a rooftop. Replacement Figure 3 is a picture of the actual frame that we have produced, without the scoring pieces inserted. With this design, each scoring piece is now flush with the frame up to the tiny inverted "v". This elongated "v" is slightly less than 1.5 mm in length. Therefore, the scoring pieces are recessed just under 1.5 mm inside the frame. On current electronic dartboards the scoring pieces are recessed 6.35 mm, or more, inside the frame, due to the fact the frame overlaps the scoring pieces on the front. With the newly designed frame, the electronic dartboard will be very similar to a traditional cork dartboard where the metal borders are nearly flush with the scoring areas (See Replacement Figure 7). Since the scoring pieces are nearly flush with the frame, darts hitting the frame will immediately slide directly into the scoring area on either side of the border. In fact, the holes around the edges of each scoring piece don't need to be recessed further back than the rest of the holes in each scoring piece, as is the case with current electronic dartboards, as long as the entire scoring piece is slightly recessed in the frame. The key is to have the holes along each edge of the scoring pieces "slightly" recessed inside the frame. The sides of the "squares", which encompass the circular holes, must also remain tapered inward to make sure the dart enters the round hole inside each square. Replacement Figure 5 is a picture of the actual frame with the scoring pieces inserted. Darts that hit the frame now, will slide into the scoring piece on either side of the border it hits, and be scored correctly.
This thinner frame, and the borders it is made up of, will no longer hold the scoring pieces in place from the front of the frame. The pieces will be held in place, and kept from falling out of the frame, with the addition of alternating protruding tabs to each of the scoring pieces. These tabs overlap the back of the frame, keeping the pieces from falling out of the front of the board. This replaces the current practice of having the frame overlap the scoring pieces on the front of the board to hold them in place. Replacement Figure 4 is a picture of the backs of the different scoring pieces. Replacement Figure 6 is a picture of a section of the back of the dartboard. This picture shows how the protruding tabs overlap the back of the frame, keeping the scoring pieces in place. It also shows the pegs in the back of the board that make contact with the electronic surface when the piece is pushed back once the dart makes contact with it. Although it may not be necessary, in addition to the pegs in the picture, we are proposing that an additional peg be added to the center of each piece to ensure contact results in the dart registering the correct score. Well-thrown darts that hit in the field of play will register and be scored correctly. This, in turn, will eliminate the vast majority of the controversy, debates, and erroneous scoring that exists on the current devices.” Which is also not supported by the original disclosure
Thus, the amendments filed 1/21/2025 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specificaition, fails to describe “…concentric circular borders between the scoring pieces is reduced by 3+ times the original size, no longer overlapping the scoring pieces, and is beveled into the shape of an inverted "v"” and “…hit these borders will slide into one of the scoring pieces on either side the borders.” The specification is also silent to “scoring pieces have alternating protruding tabs that overlap the frame from behind holding the pieces in place, and preventing them from falling out of the board.” Thus claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart et al. (US Patent 5,613,685; referred to hereinafter as Stewart).
Claim 10: Stewart disclose an electronic dartboard apparatus in which the frame that comprises the straight and concentric circular borders between the scoring pieces is reduced by 3+ times the original size, no longer overlapping the scoring pieces, and is beveled into the shape of an inverted "v", making it so that darts which hit these borders will slide into one of the scoring pieces on either side the borders (abstract & col. 7: 23-45).
Claim 11: Stewart disclose the scoring pieces have alternating protruding tabs that overlap the frame from behind holding the pieces in place, and preventing them from falling out of the board (col. 7: 46-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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
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 SUNIT PANDYA whose telephone number is (571)272-2823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:30PM.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/SUNIT PANDYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715