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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “when dependent on claim 3 or any claim dependent therefrom” appears to be a typo and is being suggested to be deleted. The examiner is interpreting claim 9 to only be dependent on claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1,2,5,11,13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Devale (US 4807887 A).
Regarding claim 1, Devale teaches an impact target (Figures 1-3; Abstract), the impact target comprising: a plate (target-carrying wall- 17) (Fig. 3) comprising a front surface (edge of element 17 facing element 13) and a rear surface (edge of element 17 facing element 22) opposite the front surface, the rear surface comprising an opening (24); and a vibration sensor (18) fixedly positioned within the opening, the vibration sensor configured to detect an impact of a sports projectile (70) with the impact target (column 6, lines 24-27). Regarding the limitation “for a sports simulator”, the examiner notes that this limitation is in the preamble and does not breathe any life or meaning in the body of the claim and is not given any patentable weight. Furthermore, this limitation is directed towards intended use and the applicant needs to define over the prior art with structural limitations and not functional limitations. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Devale teaches wherein the opening (24) extends through a thickness of the plate (17) from the rear surface (near element 22) to the front surface (near element 13) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Devale teaches the impact target further comprising a cover sheet (13) overlying the front surface of the plate (17).
Regarding claim 11, Devale teaches an opening (24) that extends through a thickness of the plate from the rear surface towards the front surface. Since the opening 24 extends through a thickness of the plate, this reads on extending partially through a thickness. The examiner is relying on BRI for the limitation “partially”.
Regarding claim 13, Devale teaches a cover sheet (13) overlying the front surface (17) of the plate.
Regarding claim 16, Devale teaches wherein a cross-section (Fig. 3) of the opening (24) is adapted to conform to a cross-section of the vibration sensor (18).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devale.
Regarding claim 18, Devale teaches wherein the rear surface comprises one opening (24) and one vibration sensor (18) respectively positioned in the one opening.
Devale does not teach wherein the rear surface further comprises further openings; and further vibration sensors respectively positioned in the 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.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devale in view of Yang (CN 205759674 U).
Regarding claim 3, Devale does not teach wherein the impact target further comprises a cover plate overlying the opening on the front surface. However, the microphone-18 of Devale acts as a cover plate by covering the opening that encases the sensor. Furthermore, Yang teaches wherein an impact target (20) further comprises a cover plate (211) overlying the opening (Figure 5; paragraph 62, last two sentences). 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 cover plate of Yang over the opening (element-24) of Devale, which is directly behind the cover sheet-13 of Devale, to add a backing layer of protection behind the cover sheet that directly receives the impact, to prevent the cover sheet from being damaged/pierced upon impact. In other words, the cover plate would prevent the projectile or ball from breaking through the cover sheet and proceeding directly into the opening that is housing the sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Devale does not teach a cover plate wherein the cover plate comprises one or more perforations. However, Yang teaches a cover plate (211) (Figure 5; paragraph 62, last two sentences) that comprises one or more perforations (212). 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 the cover plate of Yang with the perforations of Yang on the cover plate to either enable the pressure waves to propagate into the opening that is housing the sensor, or to mount the cover plate to the opening that is housing the sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Devale teaches the vibration sensor (18), a mount plate (22) and the mount plate (22) is mechanically fixed to the rear surface of the plate (17). Devale does not teach wherein the vibration sensor is mechanically mounted on a mount plate. However, Yang teaches wherein the vibration sensor (22) is mechanically mounted on a mount plate (23) (Fig. 5). 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 vibration sensor on the mount plate as taught by Yang to enable a greater distance of the sensor from the source of impact to prevent dislocation of the sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Devale teaches a mount plate (22). Devale does not teach wherein the mount plate is mechanically coupled to the cover plate. However, Yang teaches wherein the mount plate (23) is mechanically coupled to the cover plate (211). 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 cover plate of Yang over the opening-24 of modified Devale, to enable the mount plate and cover plate to be mechanically coupled to secure the sensor.
Regarding claim 12, Devale teaches a front surface (edge of element 17 facing element 13) and opening (24). Devale does not teach a plate between the front surface and the opening and wherein a portion of the plate between the front surface and the opening is perforated. However, the microphone-18 of Devale acts as a cover plate by covering the opening that encases the sensor. Furthermore, Yang teaches a cover plate (211) wherein a portion of the cover plate (211) is perforated (212) (Figure 5; paragraph 62, last two sentences). 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 perforated cover plate of Yang between the front surface and the opening of Devale, which is directly behind the cover sheet-13 of Devale, to add a backing layer of protection behind the cover sheet that directly receives the impact, to prevent the cover sheet from being damaged/pierced upon impact, and for the perforations in the cover plate of Yang to enable the pressure waves to propagate into the opening that is housing the sensor, or to mount the cover plate to the opening that is housing the sensor.
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, and 20 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 (edge of element 17 facing element 13). Devale does not 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, Devale does not teach a compressible seal arranged to separate the cover sheet from the front surface to provide the air gap. However, Vuagniaux teaches a compressible seal (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 14, Devale teaches the cover sheet (13) and the front surface (edge of element 17 facing element 13). Devale does not 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 of Vuagniaux between the cover sheet and front surface to enable impact absorption.
Regarding claim 15, Devale does not teach a compressible seal arranged to separate the cover sheet from the front surface to provide the air gap. However, Vuagniaux teaches a compressible seal (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 of Devale to enable the formation of an air gap for impact absorption.
Regarding claim 20, Devale teaches an impact target (Figures 1-3; Abstract). Devale does not clearly disclose a sports simulator. However, 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devale in view of Yang as applied for claims 3, 4, 8, 9 and 12 above further in view of Vuagniaux.
Regarding claim 10, Devale does not teach 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.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devale in view of Mason (US 20160091285 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Devale teaches a vibration sensor (18) (column 6, lines 24-27). Devale does not 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711