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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 10/3/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: The Apparel and the first participant lack antecedent basis. 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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Claim 1 recites, the one or more indicators and the one or more actuators being configured to operate as a mesh network that permits the transmission of an originated signal from an originating actuator of the one or more actuators between the indicators and the actuators within a proximity range of each other such that the one or more indicators receive the originating signal even if the indicators are not in a receiving range of the originating actuator. The claim is indefinite because in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim can require only one indicator and one actuator. However, the claim recites, “the one or more indicators receive the originating signal even if the indicators are not in a receiving range of the originating actuator” and “configured to operate as a mesh network” and therefore requires more than one indicator and more than one actuator.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankins (US 2022/0276826) in view of Genova (US 2019/0091545).
Claim 1. Hankins discloses a signaling system comprising:
one or more indicators with each indicator (30 in Fig. 5) comprising one or more signalers (32, 44, 48 in Fig. 5), an indicator processor (38 in Fig. 5), and a wireless receiver (40 in Fig. 5);
one or more actuators with each actuator comprising a touch interface (buttons 22 in Fig. 5), an actuator processor (23 in in Fig. 5), and a wireless transmitter (25 in Fig. 5), the actuator processor of each actuator being configured to produce signal data for wireless transmission, and wherein the indicator processor is configured to electronically communicate with the signaler based on the signal data received by the wireless transceiver (paragraphs 41-43).
Hankins discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach that, the one or more indicators comprising a wireless transceiver, the one or more actuators comprising a wireless transceiver; and the one or more indicators and the one or more actuators being configured to operate as a mesh network that permits the transmission of an originated signal from an originating actuator of the one or more actuators between the indicators and the actuators within a proximity range of each other such that the one or more indicators receive the originating signal even if the indicators are not in a receiving range of the originating actuator. Nevertheless, such modification would been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to signaling systems for sports, Genova discloses a system in which users can communicate using wearable devices (paragraph 11). Genova discloses the wearable devices each comprises a wireless transceiver (306 in Fig. 3) and form a mesh network (paragraph 36). This allows a wearable device that is not within communication range of the private network may communicate with other wearable devices within the mesh (paragraph 36). In addition, a mesh network allows the devices to connect with each other and therefore can transmit data to a device that is not directly within range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankins’ invention incorporate wireless transceiver within the indicators and actuators and communicate in a mesh network as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of allowing the indicators and actuators to communicate with other within the mesh even when the indicators and actuators are not within range of the private network. In addition, this will allow an indicator and an actuator to communicate with each other even when the indicator is not directly in communication with the actuator.
Claim 2. Hankins discloses the signaling system of claim 1, wherein the one or more signalers of the indicator includes at least two signalers positioned a distance apart in the apparel of the first participant (i.e. signalers 32 on each side of the hat in Fig. 8a, paragraph 62).
Claim 6. Hankins discloses the signaling system of claim 1, wherein an actuator of the one or more actuators comprises a clip for engaging the actuator with the apparel of the second participant (clips or fastener to hold onto baseball hat, paragraph 44).
Claims 3-4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankins (US 2022/0276826) in view of Genova (US 2019/0091545) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams (US 2021/0322844).
Claim 3. Hankins discloses the claimed signaling system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach that each signaler of the one or more indicators provides haptic feedback when a signal is sent to the signaler. It is noted that although Hankins discloses haptic feedback/signalers (paragraph 43), the provisional applications fails to teach haptic signalers. Nevertheless, such modification would been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to signaling systems for sports, Williams discloses a system in which users can communicate using a signaling system. Williams discloses one or more actuator devices (102 in Fig. 6) and an indicator (104) comprising a signaler (output device 120 in Fig. 6). Williams discloses that the signaler can be haptic signalers (vibratory signal, paragraphs 18-19, 27, 31). This allows the receiving user to feel the signal and prevent unwanted users or opposing players from intercepting the signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankins’ invention and incorporate haptic feedback in order to allow the receiving user to feel the signal and prevent unwanted users or opposing players from intercepting the signal.
Claim 4. Hankins in view of Genova and Williams discloses each signaler of the one or more indicators comprises a vibrator (See claim 3 above).
7. Hankins discloses the claimed signaling system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach that an actuator of the one or more actuators comprises a smart device (or smart phone as indicated by Applicant’s specification). Nevertheless, such modification would been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to signaling systems for sports, Williams discloses a system in which users can communicate using a signaling system. Williams discloses one or more actuator devices (102 in Fig. 6) and an indicator (104) comprising a signaler (output device 120 in Fig. 6). Williams discloses that the actuator can be a smart device (smartphone, paragraph 32). This allows a user to use their phone to provide input. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankins’ invention and incorporate a smart device and a signaling system in order to allow a user use their smartphone as inputs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hankins (US 2022/0276826) in view of Genova (US 2019/0091545) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petrillo (US 2021/0225141).
Claim 5. Hankins discloses the claimed signaling system of claim 1 as discussed above but fails each of the indicator and the signaler is housed in a waterproof covering.
Nevertheless, such modification would been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art. In an analogous art to signaling systems for sports, Petrillo discloses a system in which users can communicate using a signaling system. Petrillo both the transmitter and the receiver housing should be heat-resistant, waterproof, sweat-proof and durable, but durability should not diminish the haptic feedback or signal strength (paragraphs 31, 74, 126, 148). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hankins’ invention and incorporate a waterproof casing in order to prevent damage from water and provide durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasson H Yoo whose telephone number is (571)272-5563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JASSON H YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715