DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to claim amendments received 05/01/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1 and 9 currently amended.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeVale et al. [US4807887], herein after DeVale.
Regarding claim 1, DeVale discloses an impact target for a sports simulator (Figs. 1-3), the impact target comprising:
a plate comprising a front surface (Figs. 2-3, the side of “cabinet 11” that meets “front face portion 13”) and a rear surface opposite the front surface (Figs. 2-3, the side of “cabinet 11” that meets “mounting bracket 22”), the rear surface comprising an opening (Figs. 2-3, “aperture 24 of target supporting wall 17”), the plate configured to vibrate in response to an impact of a sports projectile with the impact target (col. 4, lines 58-60, “Front face portion 13 emits a characteristic signal in the form of vibration and/or sound upon impact by a projectile 70”); and a vibration sensor fixedly positioned within the opening, the vibration sensor configured to detect an impact of a sports projectile with the impact target (col. 6, lines 24-27, “An alternative embodiment could be employed whereby a vibration sensor could be used instead of microphonic means 15 to detect the impact of a projectile 70 on front face portion 13” and col. 4, lines 63-66, “crystal microphone 18 having connection cord 21 extending therefrom, is received within aperture 24 of target supporting wall 17”).
Regarding claim 2, DeVale discloses the impact target of claim 1, wherein the opening extends through a thickness of the plate from the rear surface to the front surface (Fig. 3, “aperture 24”).
Regarding claim 3, DeVale discloses the impact target of claim 2, further comprising a cover plate overlying the opening on the front surface (Figs. 2-3, “front face portion 13”).
Regarding claim 5, DeVale discloses the impact target of claim 2, further comprising a cover sheet overlying the front surface of the plate (col. 4, lines 51-53, “As shown in FIG. 2, front face portion 13 consists of a flat, vertical plexiglass sheet”).
Regarding claim 8, DeVale discloses the impact target of claim 1, wherein the vibration sensor is mechanically mounted on a mount plate and the mount plate is mechanically fixed to the rear surface of the plate (col. 6, lines 24-27, “An alternative embodiment could be employed whereby a vibration sensor could be used instead of microphonic means 15 to detect the impact of a projectile 70 on front face portion 13” and col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 6, “Microphone 18 is maintained in its position up against front face 13, by spring loaded spacer 15 and spring 20… Spring 20 is interposed between spacer 19 and mounting bracket 22, which is securely affixed to the back of wall 17, by screws or the like.”).
Regarding claim 9, DeVale discloses the impact target of claim 8, wherein the opening extends through a thickness of the plate from the rear surface to the front surface (Fig. 3, thickness of 17), wherein the impact target further comprises a cover plate overlying the opening on the front surface (Figs. 2-3, “front face portion 13”), and, wherein the mount plate is mechanically coupled to the cover plate (col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 1, “Microphone 18 is maintained in its position up against front face 13, by spring loaded spacer 15”).
Regarding claim 11, Devale discloses the impact target of claim 1, wherein the opening extends partially through a thickness of the plate from the rear surface towards the front surface (Fig. 3, “aperture 24”).
Regarding claim 13, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, Devale discloses the impact target of claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the opening is adapted to conform to a cross-section of the vibration sensor (Fig. 3, 24 and 18).
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(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVale.
Regarding claim 18, Devale discloses the impact target of claim 1. However, Devale does not explicitly disclose wherein the rear surface further comprises one or more further openings; and the impact target further comprises one or more further vibration sensors respectively positioned in the one or more further openings. However, adding further openings and vibration sensors is a simple matter of duplication of parts. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to add multiple openings and sensors to the target plate to enable detection at various locations of the target plate.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVale, in view of YANG et al. [CN205759674], hereinafter YANG.
Regarding claim 4, DeVale discloses the impact target of claim 3. However, DeVale does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover plate comprises one or more perforations.
Nevertheless, YANG teaches in a like invention, the cover plate comprises one or more perforations (Fig. 5, 212).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impact target disclosed by DeVale, to have the perforations, as taught by YANG, in order o make it more convenient to mount the cover plate.
Regarding claim 12, please refer to the claim rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 10, 14, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVale, in view of Vuagniaux (EP 3117879 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Devale teaches the cover sheet (13) and the front surface (side of element 17 facing element 13). Devale does not explicitly teach an air gap between the cover sheet and the front surface. However, Vuagniaux teaches a gap (Fig. 1B; space within element 25; paragraph 55) between two layers (layer-24 and layer-26) of an impact target (2). Although the gap found in Vuagniaux is not between the cover sheet and the front surface as claimed by the applicant of the instantly claimed invention, simply changing the location of the gap is a simple matter of rearrangement of parts, which does not hold patentable weight. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held the case to be unpatentable because shifting the position of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Devale with the gap as taught by Vuagniaux between the cover sheet and front surface of Devale to enable impact absorption.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of DeVale and Vuagniaux discloses the impact target of claim 6, comprising a compressible seal (Vuagniaux, (25) paragraph 55, last sentence) arranged to separate two layers (layer-24 and layer 26) of an impact target. Vuagniaux does not teach that the compressible seal separates the cover sheet from the front surface to provide the air gap. However, although the gap found in Vuagniaux is not between the cover sheet and the front surface as claimed by the applicant of the instantly claimed invention, simply changing the location of the gap is a simple matter of rearrangement of parts, which does not hold patentable weight. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held the case to be unpatentable because shifting the position of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Devale with the compressible seal of Vuagniaux between the cover sheet and front surface to provide an air gap for impact absorption.
Regarding claim 10, DeVale discloses the impact target of claim 8. However, DeVale does not disclose the impact target further comprising a second compressible seal between the mount plate and the rear surface. However, Vuagniaux teaches a compressible seal (25) between two layers (layer 24 and layer 26) of an impact target. Simply changing the location of the seal is a simple matter of rearrangement of parts, which does not hold patentable weight. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) , where the court held that a rearrangement of parts was an obvious matter of design choice and thus was unpatentable. Furthermore, adding a second compressible seal is a simple matter of duplication of parts. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide modified Devale with a second seal, duplicating the seal taught by Vuagniaux, to obtain an impact target with compressible seals for an optimal detection of vibration by the sensor.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 20, Devale discloses the impact target as claimed in claim 1. However, Devale does not explicitly disclose a sports simulator. Nevertheless, Vuagniaux discloses a sports simulator (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the target of Devale with the sports simulator of Vuagniaux to practice hitting a projectile toward a particular target.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeVale, in view of Mason [US 20160091285].
Regarding claim 17, Devale teaches a vibration sensor (18) (column 6, lines 24-27). Devale does not explicitly teach wherein the vibration sensor comprises a piezo sensor or an accelerometer. However, Mason teaches an impact target (310) (Fig. 3B) with a vibration sensor that comprises a piezo sensor (304) (Abstract, second sentence; Fig. 3D). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Devale with the piezo sensor taught by Mason to enable a means of detecting a force on the target plate upon impact of a projectile.
Regarding claim 19, Devale does not teach a damper for isolating the vibration sensor from ambient vibrations. However, Mason teaches a damper (674) (Fig. 6D; paragraph 74, second sentence and last sentence). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Devale with the damper of Mason to isolate the vibration sensor from ambient vibrations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35. U.S.C. 102, applicant argues “Devale fails to teach or suggest a plate comprising a "rear surface comprising an opening, the plate configured to vibrate in response to an impact of a sports projectile with the impact target and a vibration sensor fixedly positioned within the opening.”” (p. 5). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully submits that Devale discloses in detail a microphone fixedly positioned within the opening in a preferred embodiment. Devale also explicitly disclose that in an alternative embodiment, a vibration sensor could be used instead of microphone (col. 6, lines 24-27, “An alternative embodiment could be employed whereby a vibration sensor could be used instead of microphonic means 15 to detect the impact of a projectile 70 on front face portion 13” and col. 4, lines 63-66, “crystal microphone 18 having connection cord 21 extending therefrom, is received within aperture 24 of target supporting wall 17”). Thus the alternative embodiment of Devale fully teaches the claimed limitation of claim 1.
Applicant further argues “Devale does not teach or suggest that the target carrying wall 17 is "configured to vibrate in response to an impact of a sports projectile,"” (p. 6). Without a particular structure limitation on how the plate is configured to vibrate in response to an impact of a sports projectile with the impact target, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the vibration signal received by the vibration sensor inside aperture 24 of target supporting wall 17 will read on this limitation (col. 4, lines 58-60, “Front face portion 13 emits a characteristic signal in the form of vibration and/or sound upon impact by a projectile 70”).
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 YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights