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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-12, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odorisio et al (10,112,094) hereinafter (Odorisio).
Claim 1, Odorisio discloses a sport training system comprising:
a control module (figure 8, controller 114; column 5, lines 29-33 and lines 45-50);
an arena (arena 10, 10A-10G; figures 1, 7A-7G) being defined by:
a first wall, a second wall, a third wall, a fourth wall, and a fifth wall forming a shape (column 3, lines 54-63);
a plurality of targets (training targets 52) each including a sensor (impact sensor 106) operatively connected to the control module (114), at least one target being integrated into each one of the walls (figure 1 shows the target(s) are integrated into the walls); and
a plurality of light sources (light bar 102) operatively connected to the control module (114), one light source being located proximate each of the targets (figures 2 and 4 show one light source located proximate each of the targets).
With regards to the arena being substantially pentagonal shape, as noted above Odorisio shows the arena may have a number of different configurations (figures 1, 7A-7G). It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed substantially pentagonal shape was significant. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 2, Odorisio shows the arena has one line of symmetry and one line of asymmetry (as shown in figures 7A-7G depending on the shape of the arena there can be one or more lines of symmetry and/or asymmetry).
Claim 7, Odorisio shows depending on the shape of the arena the ends of the plurality of walls may be perpendicular to each other, extend at 45 degrees or meet at 90 degree angle.
Claim 8, Odorisio shows the control module is adapted to send a signal to each of the plurality of light sources to illuminate a first color or a second color (the signal is relayed; column 5, lines 34-44).
Claim 9, Odorisio shows each of the plurality of targets are adapted to send a signal to the control module when engaged (the signal is relayed when impacted; column 5, lines 34-44).
Claim 10, Odorisio discloses a sport training system comprising:
a control module (figure 8, controller 114; column 5, lines 29-33 and lines 45-50); and
a sport arena (arena 10, 10A-10G; figures 1, 7A-7G) including an enclosed arena (plurality of walls 12; column 3, lines 54-63), a plurality of targets (52), and a plurality of light sources (102);
the enclosed arena (10) defined by a shape;
the plurality of targets (52) each including a sensor (106) operatively connected to the control module (114), at least one target (52) being integrated into each one of the walls (12; (figure 1 shows the target(s) are integrated into the walls) of the enclosed arena; and
the plurality of light sources (light bar 102) operatively connected to the control module (114), one of the plurality of light sources (52) being located proximate one of the plurality of targets (52; figures 2 and 4 show one light source located proximate each of the targets).
With regards to the arena being substantially pentagonal shape, as noted above Odorisio shows the arena may have a number of different configurations (figures 1, 7A-7G). It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed substantially pentagonal shape was significant. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 11, Odorisio shows depending on the shape of the arena the ends of the plurality of walls may be perpendicular to each other, extend at 45 degrees or meet at 90 degree angle.
Claim 12, Odorisio shows the plurality of walls each include one target (52). Odorisio discloses the claimed device with the exception of the first wall having two targets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included two targets in the first wall of Odorisio, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 17, Odorisio shows a bottom of each of the plurality of targets (52) are located above from a surface (figures 6, 6A and 6B; column 3, lines 64-67 and column 4, lines 1-3). Odorisio discloses the claimed device with the exception of positioning the targets approximately 3 inches above a surface. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the targets approximately 3 inches above a surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 18, Odorisio shows the arena has at least one line of symmetry and at least one line of asymmetry (as shown in figures 7A-7G depending on the shape of the arena there can be one or more lines of symmetry and/or asymmetry).
Claim 19, Odorisio shows the light sources (102) are located above the targets (figure 4).
Claim 20, Odorisio discloses a sport training system comprising:
a control module (figure 8, controller 114; column 5, lines 29-33 and lines 45-50);
a sport arena being defined by:
a plurality of targets (training targets 52) each including a sensor (impact sensor 106) operatively connected to the control module (114);
a plurality of light sources (light bar 102) operatively connected to the control module (114); and
an enclosed arena (arena 10, 10A-10G; figures 1, 7A-7G) having a shape, the enclosed arena consisting essentially of:
a first wall (12) having a first end and a second end, the first wall (12; column 3, lines 54-63) including a target (52) and a light sources (102);
a second, third, fourth and fifth walls (12) each having a target (52) and a light source (102).
Odorisio further shows depending on the shape of the arena the ends of the plurality of walls may be perpendicular to each other, extend at 45 degrees or meet at 90 degree angle.
With regards to the arena being substantially pentagonal shape, as noted above Odorisio shows the arena may have a number of different configurations (figures 1, 7A-7G). It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed substantially pentagonal shape was significant. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Odorisio shows the plurality of walls each include one target (52). Odorisio discloses the claimed device with the exception of the first wall having two targets. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included two targets in the first wall of Odorisio, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 3-5, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odorisio et al (10,112,094) hereinafter (Odorisio) in view of Welch (8,292,709).
Claim 3, Odorisio disclosed the plurality of targets including target. Odorisio discloses the claimed device with the exception of each of the plurality of targets (52) are defined by: a first and second conductive layer and a non-conductive layer. However, as disclosed by Welch it is known in the art to have a target having first and second conductive layers and a non-conductive layer located between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (column 2, lines 33-42; there are at least two conductive layers and a central layer therebetween which is non-conductive layer; note refer to Sandbach 6,714,117 for details).
Claim 4, Odorisio as modified in view Welch further shows the second conductive layer is an elastic metallic fabric (column 2, lines 33-42 references Sandbach 6,714,117 for details in the particular fabric being used).
Claim 5, Odorisio as modified in view Welch further shows the non-conductive layer is comprised of a resilient foam (column 2, lines 33-42 references Sandbach 6,714,117 for details in the particular fabric being used. Sandbach teaches that the non-conductive layer may be formed of alternative material such as knitted fabric or non-woven fabric i.e. non-woven fabric includes foams).
Claim 13, Odorisio disclosed the plurality of targets including target. Odorisio discloses the claimed device with the exception of each of the plurality of targets (52) are defined by: a first and second conductive layer and a non-conductive layer. However, as disclosed by Welch it is known in the art to have a target having first and second conductive layers and a non-conductive layer located between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (column 2, lines 33-42; there are at least two conductive layers and a central layer therebetween which is non-conductive layer; note refer to Sandbach 6,714,117 for details);
a first conductive lead connected to the first conductive layer and the control module; and a second conductive lead connected to the second conductive layer and the control module (the metal present in the conductive layer acts as a lead(s) in order to connect to the conductive layer and control module).
Claim 14, Odorisio as modified in view Welch further shows the second conductive layer is an elastic metallic fabric (column 2, lines 33-42 references Sandbach 6,714,117 for details in the particular fabric being used).
Claim 15, Odorisio as modified in view Welch further shows the non-conductive layer includes several individual and distinct pieces of material (column 2, lines 33-42 references Sandbach 6,714,117 for details in the particular fabric being used. Sandbach teaches that the non-conductive layer may be formed of alternative material such as knitted fabric or non-woven fabric).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odorisio et al (10,112,094) hereinafter (Odorisio) in view of Eddie (US2017/0259144 A1).
Claim 6, Odorisio shows each of the plurality of light sources (102) are adapted to illuminate in a first color. Odorisio does not expressly disclose the light sources illuminating in a first color and a second color. However, as disclosed by Eddie (paragraphs 0008, 0022-0024; claim 11 and claim 12) it is known in the art for the light sources two illuminate in different colors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used one or more color lights for Odorisio’s device given that Eddie teaches such is useful for representing different players or other relevant objects.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odorisio et al (10,112,094) hereinafter (Odorisio) in view of Nugent (US2017/013114 A1).
Claim 16, Odorisio discloses the lights are in the form of light bars but does not expressly disclose the lights being LEDs. However, as disclosed by Nugent (paragraph 0058) it is known in the art to utilize LEDs as a light source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a light for Odorisio’s assembly given that Nugent teaches are known lights for use with targets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s assertion that automated interview requests have been “ignored”. The following is respectfully asserted: The first Electronic request for interview was received on 10/6/2025 which requested an interview date for 10/13/2025 at 1:00pm. October 13 was a Federal Holiday (Columbus Day). The examiner made a phone call to applicant’s representative Mr. Andrew Graff at 303-768-0123 (the number was included on the automated interview request). A message was left on Mr. Graff’s answering machine/service since no one picked up the phone. The message indicated that the requested date was a Federal Holiday and that the USPTO will be closed on that day. The message further asked that Mr. Graff to call the examiner so that an alternative date could be set for the interview. The examiner did not receive a call back. A second Electronic request was filed on 10/13/2025 which request an interview date 10/20/22025 at 1:00pm. The examiner made a second phone call to applicant’s representative Mr. Andrew Graff. A message was left on Mr. Graff’s answering machine/service since no one picked up the phone. The message indicated that the requested date and time caused a conflict with the examiner’s schedule. Again, the examiner asked for Mr. Graff to call in order to schedule an interview for an alternative time. Again, the examiner did not receive a call back. No further electronic interview requests were submitted to the USPTO.
Applicant is reminder that requesting an interview can be achieved both through the automated system and telephone. When requesting an interview, providing multiple dates and times is helpful, in the event one of the proposed dates/times does not work. Mr. Graff failed to provide alternative dates and times and was not responsive in his communication with the examiner. As a result no interview could be scheduled. The examiner regrets any inconvenience this may have caused applicant.
With regards to claims 1, 10 and 20, the shape of the arena, the application as filed discloses that the arena can have different shapes one of which could be pentagonal shape and another hexagonal shape. The specification provides a few statements why applicant believes some shapes are not as beneficial. The patent to Odorisio discloses a plurality of different shapes for the arena. Figure1 shows a rectangular shape which includes four angled side walls. Figures 7A through 7G show alternative wall configurations for the arena. Of interest is Figure 7B which shows the arena formed of two mirror shapes, each forming a substantially pentagonal shape. It is the examiner’s position based on Odorisio’s teachings that having a arena formed as a pentagon or hexagon or any other shape would be an obvious matter of design choice depending on its intended use, since Odorisio shows a plurality of different shapes that can be used as the arena.
With regards to claim 2, as shown in figure 7B, each end of the arena is formed of a pentagon, therefore, there exists one line of symmetry and one line of asymmetry.
With regards to claims 3-5, applicant asserts that Welch and/or Sandbach do not teach non-conductive. Contrary to applicant’s assertion Sandbach clearly teaches conductive and non-conductive layer (column 5, lines 42-55, column 8, lines 5-23 and 62-65, column 9, lines 16-21, column 10, lines 30-37).
With regards to claim 7, as noted in comments regarding claims 1, 10 and 20, the shape of the arena, the application as filed discloses that the arena can have different shapes one of which could be pentagonal shape and another hexagonal shape. The specification provides a few statements why applicant believes some shapes are not as beneficial. The patent to Odorisio discloses a plurality of different shapes for the arena. Figure1 shows a rectangular shape which includes four angled side walls. Figures 7A through 7G show alternative wall configurations for the arena. Of interest is Figure 7B which shows the arena formed of two mirror shapes, each forming a substantially pentagon-shape. It is the examiner’s position based on Odorisio’s teachings that having an arena formed as a pentagon or hexagon or any other shape would be an obvious matter of design choice depending on its intended use since Odorisio shows a plurality of different shapes that can be used as the arena.
With regards to claim 20, the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” contrary to applicant’s assertions MPEP 211.03(III) states:
A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format." PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also Atlas Powder v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 224 USPQ 409 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 137 USPQ 893 (CCPA 1963); Water Technologies Corp. vs. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 7 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1988). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355.
Therefore, “consisting essentially of” has been construed as equivalent to “comprising”.
In conclusion, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art of record read on the pending claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thur, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
27 February 2026