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
Claims 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17, line 2, “that” should be deleted before “in every corner”; claim 17, lines 3-4, second occurrence of “wall” should be deleted; claim 19, line 6, “two sensor lines” should be deleted after “a second sensor line”. Appropriate correction is required for the above objections.
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 1-3, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (10,668,354).
Claim 1, Kern discloses a device for determining the sequence in which a ball (ball 14) hits a first wall (by way of example wall 6) and a second wall (by way of example wall 8), the first wall and the second wall at least partly delimiting a playing field (playing area 19) of a ball sports court, the device comprising:
at least a first sensor and a second sensor (sensor system 15 which may include first and second light grids 17, 18 or alternatively camera 25);
a processing unit (computing unit 21),
whereby the first sensor provides for a first sensor field (target field 27), and whereby the second sensor provides for a second sensor field (target field 28), whereby the first sensor field is provided at least partly at a first distance from the first wall and at least partly in the playing field, and that the second sensor field is provided at least partly at a second distance from the second wall and at least partly in the playing field. Kern discloses the claimed device with the exception of discloses that a smallest distance between the first sensor field and the second sensor field is not bigger than 150% of a diameter of the ball. However, Kern discloses that the projection area (20) is smaller than the play area (19) but arranged within the play area (19). It is noted that the smallest distance of the first and second sensor field has been given no criticality by the applicant. It is further noted that applicant has not disclosed the largest distance between the first and second sensor field, not has applicant disclosed a typical/average distance. Lacking any criticality, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a size range for the distance between the first and second sensors, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance between components. 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 2, Kern further the smallest distance between the first sensor field and the second sensor field is less than or is equal to the diameter of the ball. As noted above, Kern discloses that the projection area (20) is smaller than the play area (19) but arranged within the play area (19). It is noted that the smallest distance of the first and second sensor field has been given no criticality by the applicant. It is further noted that applicant has not disclosed the largest distance between the first and second sensor field, not has applicant disclosed a typical/average distance. Lacking any criticality, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a size range for the distance between the first and second sensors, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/distance between components. 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 3, Kern shows a flat strip (impact line 4) is located parallel to a relevant wall (line 4 is parallel to the back wall).
Claim 15, Kern shows the first wall and the second wall are walls are walls of the playing field (19; figure 1). Kern discloses the claimed device with the exception of the material used to form the first and second walls. It is noted that the recited material has been given no criticality by the applicant. Lacking any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected any suitable material providing a necessary level of durability, including concrete, glass, fencing, artificial grass or gravel, since both the Kern invention and the present invention have substantially similar applications and would thus utilize similar material. The selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice, therefore held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 20, Kern shows the device is provided in squash playing fields (column 1, lines 15-16).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (10,668,354) in view of Marty (9,370,704).
Claim 4, Kern shows the first sensor and the second can include a light grid sensor or alternatively a camera with an image processing unit. Kern does not expressly disclose alternatively using optical or motion sensors, pressure sensors, or vibration sensors. The Examiner takes Official Notice that substituting a camera with an image processing unit with an alternative type of sensor such as optical or motion sensors, pressure sensors, or vibration sensors are old and well known and obvious to incorporate because although the camera system offers a more versatile and data-rich method of sensing, the dedicated, simpler sensors often provide greater accuracy, lower latency and a cost-effectiveness for specific, narrow tasks.
Alternatively, Marty discloses (column 6, lines 44-62 and column 25, lines 8-20) trajectory detection and analysis system may include one or more cameras or 3D capturing sensors. Alternatively, some examples of sensors can include but are not limited to cameras, accelerometers, tilt sensors, vibration detectors and microphones. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted one known sensor for another simpler sensor in order to provide greater accuracy, lower latency and a cost-effectiveness for specific, narrow tasks.
Claim 5, claim 5 is dependent on claim 4. Claim 4 recites at least one of the following sensors: optical sensors, motion sensors; pressure sensors; vibration sensors. Kern as modified in view of Marty disclose the use of vibration sensors. The remaining sensors are not selected from the group listed in claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to a claimed embodiment that was not selected. No further comments are deemed necessary.
Claim 6, claim 6 is also dependent on claim 4. as noted in claim 5, Claim 4 recites at least one of the following sensors: optical sensors, motion sensors; pressure sensors; vibration sensors. Kern as modified in view of Marty disclose the use of vibration sensors. The remaining sensors are not selected from the group listed in claim 4. Therefore, claim 6 is directed to a claimed embodiment that was not selected. No further comments are deemed necessary.
Claim 7, claim 6 is also dependent on claim 4. as noted in claims 5 and 6, Claim 4 recites at least one of the following sensors: optical sensors, motion sensors; pressure sensors; vibration sensors. Kern as modified in view of Marty disclose the use of vibration sensors. The remaining sensors are not selected from the group listed in claim 4. Therefore, claim 7is directed to a claimed embodiment that was not selected. No further comments are deemed necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14, 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berglund et al (US2023/0405444 A1); Frazier et al (US2024/0181322 A1).
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, Thurs, 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/
13 December 2025