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 .
Drawings
Regarding FIGS. 1-24, 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), stated in part, indicates that black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs and clip art, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. In the present case, FIGS. 1-24 contain screenshots/clip art that are not of sufficient quality so that all details in the screenshots are reproducible in the printed patent. Therefore, the use of screen shots/clip art lacking sufficient reproducible quality prevents FIGS. 1-24 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Regarding FIGS. 1-24, 37 CFR 1.84(m), stated in part, prefers the use of shading when parts are shown in perspective. In the present case, FIGS. 1-24 uses various forms of shading making the figures unclear Therefore, the use of shading in an otherwise non-perspective view prevents FIGS. 1-24 from complying with 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 12-16 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 9 recites the following: “9. The device of claim 1, wherein the device components are stored and transported in an EVA Hard Carry Case.” Per MPEP 608.01(m), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. The use of capital letters is reasonably believed to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows:
“9. The device of claim 1, wherein the device components are stored and transported in an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) hard carry case.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the following limitation: “a pluarality of features.” The misspelling of “plurality” is reasonably believed to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation as follows: “a plurality of features.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 13-16 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 12.
Claims 15 and 19 recite the following limitation: “without your interference or intervention.” The use of the word “your” is reasonably believed to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation as follows: “twithout [[your]] a user interference or intervention.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the following:
“…
a voice of the various celebrities feature; and
an auto restart feature.
under a par time feature, a par time setting is established; …”
Per MPEP 608.01(m), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. The use of a period after “an auto restart feature” is reasonably believed to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation as follows:
“…
a voice of the various celebrities feature; and
an auto restart feature[[.]];
under a par time feature, a par time setting is established; …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the following:
“…wherein
multiple target devices are connected wirelessly by an online network;
a plurality of target devices around deployed; target devices are provided with sensors for the detection of not only light, vibration, or sound for target shooting with projectiles.
the use of single or multiple targeting devices is a selectable software setting, which connects multiple electronic devices,…”
Per MPEP 608.01(m), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. The use of a period after “or sound for target shooting with projectiles” is reasonably believed to be a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation as follows:
“…wherein
multiple target devices are connected wirelessly by an online network;
a plurality of target devices around deployed; target devices are provided with sensors for the detection of not only light, vibration, or sound for target shooting with projectiles[[.]];
the use of single or multiple targeting devices is a selectable software setting, which connects multiple electronic devices, …”
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite recitations, inconsistent terminology, and generally confusing language that does not apprise the person of ordinary skill in the art what exactly it is that applicant intends to claim as their invention. Specifically, there are multiple instances within the claims wherein limitations are severely lacking uniformity and are repetitively inconsistent as to properly and precisely define the Applicant’s invention. Listed below are further examples of such indefinite language. Due to the number and complexity of such instances, this list is merely representative and is not necessarily comprehensive. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to amend the claims to clarify the language.
Claims 1 and 18 recite the limitations “the base target external surface,” and “the opposing side of the attachment clip.” These limitations are not introduced in claims 1 or 18, respectively. As such, the limitations are lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claims 1 and 18 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. Claims 2-17 and 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1 or 18.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the target device.” The limitation “a physical target device,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the physical target device”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is 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. Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an electronic device.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[and]] the electronic device”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is 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. Claims 2-17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claims 2-17 recite the limitation “the device.” The limitation “a physical target device,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the physical target device”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-17 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the target shape adapter.” The limitation “one or more target shape adapters” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the one or more target shape adapters”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 is 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. Claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its respective dependency to claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the square target shape adapter.” The limitation “one or more target shape adapters” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the one or more target shape adapters”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the target shape adapter.” The limitation “one or more target shape adapters” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the one or more target shape adapters”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is 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. Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on its respective dependency to claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the circle target shape adapter.” The limitation “one or more target shape adapters” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the one or more target shape adapters”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “sensors.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the sensors”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is 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. Claims 12-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the clip apparatus,” and “the clip attachment.” The limitation “an attachment clip” is introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the attachment clip and “the [[clip]] attachment clip”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an electronic device.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[and]] the electronic device”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is 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.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation “the device.” The limitation “a physical target device,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the physical target device”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the target lens.” The limitation is not introduced in claim 1 or 10. As such, the limitation is lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 10 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the software application.” The limitation “application software” is originally introduced in claim 7. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the software”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 7. Therefore, claim 12 is 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. Claims 13-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the par time,” “the smartphone,” “the end of the session,” “the target,” “the par time signal,” and “the software application.” The limitations are not introduced in claim 1, 7, 12 or 13. As such, the limitations are lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a par time feature.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 12. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the par time feature”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 12. Therefore, claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “target.” The limitation “a physical target device,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the physical target device”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a number of shots feature.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 12. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the number of shots feature”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 12. Therefore, claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the software,” “the session,” and “the current session.” The limitations are not introduced in claim 1, 7, 12 or 14. As such, the limitations are lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 14 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an auto restart feature.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 12. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[an]] the auto restart feature”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 12. Therefore, claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the time,” “the session,” “the process,” and “the next session.” The limitations are not introduced in claim 1, 7, 12 or 15. As such, the limitations are lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 15 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the user” and “the gunshots.” The limitations are not introduced in claim 1, 7, 12 or 16. As such, the limitations are lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 16 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a base target.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the base target”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “an electronic device.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 18. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[and]] the electronic device”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is 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. Claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “application software.” The limitation “application software” is originally introduced in claim 18. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the application software”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is 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. Claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the smart phone.” The limitation is not introduced in claim 18. As such, the limitation is lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 18 is 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. Claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “the clip apparatus,” and “the clip attachment.” The limitation “an attachment clip” is introduced in claim 18. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the attachment clip and “the [[clip]] attachment clip”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 18 Therefore, claim 18 is 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. Claims 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 18.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the software application.” The limitation “application software” is originally introduced in claim 18. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the software”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 18. Therefore, claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a par time feature.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 19. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[a]] the par time feature”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the smartphone.” The limitation is not introduced in claim 18 or 19. As such, the limitation is lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the target” and “target.” The limitation “a physical target device,” is originally introduced in claim 18. As such, the subsequent limitations are either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the physical target device” and “the physical target device”); or (2) are intended to be new limitations which ambiguously conflict with the previous limitation of claim 18. Therefore, claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the software” and “the session.” The limitations are not introduced in claim 18 or 19. As such, the limitations are lacking antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 19 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “target devices.” The limitations of “a physical target,” per claim 18 “multiple target devices” and “a plurality of target devices,” per claim 20 are introduced. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of either claim 18 or 20. Therefore, claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an application software.” The limitation “application software” is originally introduced in claim 18. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “[[an]] the application software”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 18. Therefore, claim 20 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715