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 Objections Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 appears to contain a misspelling: “patter” which appears should read “pattern”. 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 1-14 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. The claims will be examined as best understood. Claim 2 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The phrase “ objects of any size” fails to point out what is included or excluded . Claim 6 and 13 recites “ said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers are configured in a repeating patter comprising first emitter, second emitter, first receiver, second receiver.” Not clear if the limitation is describing a pattern for the emitters and receivers or the devices that are used in a pattern. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10 recite “can be”. Not clear if what follows “can be” is a required limitation of the claim. Claim 1 and 8 recite “ is calculated by said dividing said known distance by time between voltage changes ”. The dividing operation has not been used prior and lacks antecedent basis. 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. Claim 1 -4, 6-11, 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffl (US 9157731) in view of Bailey et al (US 4272189). In regards to claim 1 , Steffl discloses a device for measuring velocity of an object comprising: a first and a second photoelectric sensor ring spaced a known distance apart (Fig. 7 refs. 32, NOTE ring is interpreted as surrounding or encircling arrangement ) ; said first and second photoelectric sensor rings further comprising a repeating pattern of first and second emitters (Fig. 1 refs. 6, 7 beam projecting element ) and first and second receivers (Fig. 1 refs. 8, 9 beam receiving elements ) ; wherein a signal is transmitted between said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7 LBA) and is measured at a predefined rate (C3:59 “FIG. 2 shows the major elements of the apparatus for a particular embodiment. The instrumentation means measures the time and the voltage of each receiver element at a high sample rate”) ; while Steffl discloses: wherein an object is passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal (Claim 1 “detecting means for detecting the blockage of each beam of light from the projecting means by the spherical object”) , Steffl does not expressly disclose: the object passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal and causing a change in measured voltage; Baily teaches a projectile velocity measuring device comprising a first and second sensor system, as projectiles move through the sensor systems, a change in measured voltage occurs and is used in determination of velocity (abstract “Trajectory and velocity parameters are determined by identifying which detectors have an interrupted light beam and from the time interval between actuation of the arrays”, claim 2 “a threshold detector connected to the output of said amplifier for providing a detector output signal whenever the output of said amplifier exceeds a predetermined bias voltage”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the object passing through the first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking the signal causes a change in measured voltage in order to provide greater accuracy and is well known in the art for detectors. Steffl as combined further discloses: wherein said velocity of said object is calculated by said dividing said known distance by time between voltage changes ( Steffl claim 4 “ computing the velocity, trajectory, and position of the spherical object based on the times, a diameter of the spherical object, and a distance between the parallel rays of light” ) . In regards to claim 2, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, wherein said device can be scaled to measure said velocity of said objects of any size ( Steffl C5:64 “the above discussion applies to any spherical object, such as used in golf, tennis, soccer or numerous other applications”). In regards to claim 3, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, wherein said device can be scaled to measure objects in motion without regard to a minimum velocity ( Steffl C2:61 “The launch point of the sphere is not part of the calculation nor are any other conditions of flight before or after the LBA such as the assumption of a straight line trajectory”). In regards to claim 4, Steffl discloses the device of claim 1, b ut does not expressly disclose: further comprising one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers. Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system comprising housing for system parts, as suggested in Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers in order to provide protection for these devices and to make the system more compact. In regards to claim 6 , Steffl discloses t he device of claim 1, wherein said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers are configured in a repeating patter comprising first emitter, second emitter, first receiver, second receiver ( Steffl as seen in Fig. 1, emitters refs. 6, 7 and receivers refs. 8, 9 form a pattern with these references as arranged as seen in figure ) . In regards to claim 7 , Steffl discloses t he device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk therebetween. Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system wherein the emitters and detectors are differentiated from each other to prevent cross-talk (C1:40 “The beams from the emitter arrays are polarized, with adjacent emitters having perpendicular planes of polarization. The optical path of each photodetector contains a polarizing filter having a plane of polarization the same as that of the corresponding emitter. Therefore, the problem of cross-talk between channels caused by overlapping beams is overcome because each detector effectively sees only the corresponding emitter”, C2:63 “In addition to polarizers, cross-talk between channels can be eliminated by spectral filtering on adjacent channels or modulating the light beams at high frequency and frequency coding adjacent channels”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the first and second emitters and the first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk or interference in measurements. In regards to claim 8, Steffl discloses a device for measuring velocity of objects comprising: a first and a second photoelectric sensor ring spaced a known distance apart (detailed claim 1 rejection) ; said first photoelectric sensor ring further comprising a repeating pattern of first and second emitters and first and second receivers (detailed claim 1 rejection) ; said second photoelectric sensor ring further comprising a corresponding pattern of first and second receivers and first and second emitters that correspond with said repeating pattern of said first photoelectric sensor ring ( Steffl Fig. 7 ref. 32, receiver and emitter details mirrored in first and second sensor rings) ; Steffl does not expressly disclose: wherein said first emitters and said first receivers have a first matched modulation frequency, and said second emitters and second receivers have a second matched modulation frequency; Bailey teaches emitters and receivers matched (C2:45 “a detector respond to light only from its corresponding emitter”) through modulation of emitted light ( C2:63 “cross-talk between channels can be eliminated by spectral filtering on adjacent channels or modulating the light beams at high frequency and frequency coding adjacent channels”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the first emitters and the first receivers have a first matched modulation frequency, and The second emitters and second receivers have a second matched modulation frequency in order to prevent or reduce cross-talk or interference. Steffl as combined further discloses: wherein a signal is transmitted between said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers and is measured at a predefined rate ( Steffl C3:60 “The instrumentation means measures the time and the voltage of each receiver element at a high sample rate”) ; while Steffl discloses: wherein an object is passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal (Claim 1 “detecting means for detecting the blockage of each beam of light from the projecting means by the spherical object”) , Steffl does not expressly disclose: the object is passed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking said signal and causing a change in measured voltage; Baily teaches a projectile velocity measuring device comprising a first and second sensor system, as projectiles move through the sensor systems, a change in measured voltage occurs and is used in determination of velocity (abstract “Trajectory and velocity parameters are determined by identifying which detectors have an interrupted light beam and from the time interval between actuation of the arrays”, claim 2 “a threshold detector connected to the output of said amplifier for providing a detector output signal whenever the output of said amplifier exceeds a predetermined bias voltage”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the object passing through the first and second photoelectric sensor rings, blocking the signal causes a change in measured voltage in order to provide greater accuracy and is well known in the art for detectors. Steffl as combined further discloses: wherein velocity of said object is calculated by said dividing said known distance by time between voltage changes ( Steffl claim 4 “ computing the velocity, trajectory, and position of the spherical object based on the times, a diameter of the spherical object, and a distance between the parallel rays of light”) . In regards to claim 9 , Steffl as combined discloses t he device of claim 8, wherein said device can be scaled to measure said velocity of said objects of any size ( Steffl C5:64 “the above discussion applies to any spherical object, such as used in golf, tennis, soccer or numerous other applications”). In regards to claim 10, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, wherein said device can be scaled to measure objects in motion without regard to a minimum velocity ( Steffl C2:61 “The launch point of the sphere is not part of the calculation nor are any other conditions of flight before or after the LBA such as the assumption of a straight line trajectory”). In regards to claim 11, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers. Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system comprising housing for system parts, as suggested in Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing one or more control boxes containing electronics for controlling said emitters and receivers in order to provide protection for these devices and to make the system more compact. In regards to claim 13, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, wherein said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers are configured in a repeating patter comprising first emitter, second emitter, first receiver, second receiver ( Steffl as seen in Fig. 1, emitters refs. 6, 7 and receivers refs. 8, 9 form a pattern with these references as arranged as seen in figure). In regards to claim 14, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said first and second emitters and said first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk therebetween. Bailey teaches a projectile measurement system wherein the emitters and detectors are differentiated from each other to prevent cross-talk (C1:40 “The beams from the emitter arrays are polarized, with adjacent emitters having perpendicular planes of polarization. The optical path of each photodetector contains a polarizing filter having a plane of polarization the same as that of the corresponding emitter. Therefore, the problem of cross-talk between channels caused by overlapping beams is overcome because each detector effectively sees only the corresponding emitter”, C2:63 “In addition to polarizers, cross-talk between channels can be eliminated by spectral filtering on adjacent channels or modulating the light beams at high frequency and frequency coding adjacent channels”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Bailey by providing the first and second emitters and the first and second receivers differ in modulation frequency to prevent crosstalk or interference in measurements. Claim 5, 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffl , Bailey as applied to claim 1, 8 above, and further in view of Cherryhomes et al (US 20210283487) . In regards to claim 5, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said objects are dispensed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings via a dispenser. Cherryhomes teaches a dispenser ([0042] “pitching machine”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Cherryhomes by providing the objects are dispensed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings via a dispenser in order to allow uses to receive information or to change the speed of the objects. In regards to claim 12, Steffl as combined discloses the device of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein said objects are dispensed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings via a dispenser. Cherryhomes teaches a dispenser ([0042] “pitching machine”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Steffl with Cherryhomes by providing the objects are dispensed through said first and second photoelectric sensor rings via a dispenser in order to allow uses to receive information or to change the speed of the objects. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited in PTO 892. The cited references display differing means at determining an objects velocity using photoelectric means. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4798 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH 7-5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5301 . 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. /V.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642