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 § 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.
Claims 16, 18 are 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first sensor field" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second sensor field" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first sensor and the second sensor are provided at two diagonally opposite corners of the playing field in lines 1-2. However, in lines 2-4 the claim further recites “whereby in every corner a sensor unit ...” which is confusing because initially the claim recites the sensors are in diagonally opposite corners but then the claim recites that a sensor unit with the first and the second sensor are monitor a relevant corner. It is not clear what is being claimed, are there only two sensors diagonally opposite each other or are there sensors positioned in every corner?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5, 9-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oberan (4,528,548).
Claim 1, Oberan discloses a device for determining the sequence in which a ball hits a first surface (12) and a second surface (14), the first surface and the second surface at least partly delimiting a playing field of a ball sports court (see Fig. 1), the device comprising:
at least a first sensor and a second sensor (see Fig. 6, receptors 60 and 90); and
a processing unit (corresponding sensor circuitry 67, 97 and/or timing and logic circuitry 614),
whereby the first sensor provides for a first sensor field (located about the wall), and whereby the second sensor provides for a second sensor field (located about the floor), whereby the first sensor field is provided at least partly at a first distance from the first surface 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 surface and at least partly in the playing field (see Fig. 1);
whereby a smallest distance between the first sensor field and the second sensor field is not bigger than 150% of a diameter of the ball (see col. 4, lines 25-52 and col. 7, lines 12-25, wherein the sensor/receptor elements are spaced apart by about three-quarters of an inch and/or in accordance with the size of the ball so as to ensure detection of impact against the wall or the floor. Such an arrangement would necessitate that the distance between fields be no bigger than 150% in order to guarantee that the sensors receive the fields such that the presence of the ball may be detected as disclosed. It is further noted that the field of invention applies to racketball, handball or the like (see col. 1, lines 6-12), the balls for these sports are known to be larger than the three-quarter inch; and
wherein the processing unit generates a different outgoing signal depending on whether the first sensor or the second sensor first generates a detection signal (see at least col. 9, lines 45-58 and col. 10, lines 33-46, wherein depending on which sensor/receptor is activated first, an alarm is output to indicate a bad or illegal shot, or a blocking signal is issued to prevent the alarm).
Claim 2, Oberan shows 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 (see the rejection of claim 1, 5th paragraph).
Claim 3, Oberan shows a flat strip is located parallel to the first surface or the second surface (figure 1 shows flat strips 60 and/or 90).
Claim 4, Oberan shows the first sensor and the second sensor at least comprise one of the following sensors: - optical sensors (one or more light beams in an array 50, 60; column 6, lines 31-38);
Claim 5, Oberan shows the first sensor and the second sensor comprise at least one optical sensor which is based on laser technology, whereby a laser line or laser strip is generated (column 10, lines 47-63).
Claim 9, Oberan shows the processing unit generates a different outgoing signal (blocking signal 68) based on at least two detection signals, a first signal of the first sensor and a second signal of the second sensor, where the floor sensor must indicate a hit within a predetermined time period after the wall sensor indicates a hit (see column 10, lines 33-46).
Claim 10, Oberan shows the processing unit determines a sequence of both signals (see at least col. 10, lines 33-46).
Claim 11, Oberan shows the processing unit generates an output in a form of a visual signal or a sound depending on the detected or generated signals (see Fig. 6, elements 99A or 99, respectively).
Claim 20. Oberan shows wherein the device is provided in padel playing fields (racketball or handball court).
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.
Claims 6-7, 14-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberan (4,528,548).
Claim 6, Oberan does not expressly disclose using at least one pressure sensor. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of pressure sensors are old and well known and obvious to use since it is known in the art that pressure sensors can detect impact and location of a ball relative to a surface. Furthermore, applicant places no criticality on the type of sensor being used (page 7, lines 16-20 of the Specification). Therefore, any sensor capable of detecting ball position would be considered functionally equivalent to Oberan’s disclosed sensor.
With regards to “whereby a pressure sensitive strip is generated and whereby the first distance between the first surface and the pressure sensor is equal to zero or whereby the second distance between the second surface and the pressure sensor is equal to zero”, it appears that the claim is merely reciting that the pressure sensor is flush with the wall so that it would not impede with the ball and negatively impact the balls trajectory, such would be considered common sense and obvious to lay flat the pressure sensor with respect the ground or wall.
Claim 7, Oberan shows the first sensor comprises an optical sensors (one or more light beams in an array 50, 60; column 6, lines 31-38). Oberan does not expressly disclose the second sensor being a pressure sensor. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of pressure sensors are old and well known and obvious to use since it is known in the art that pressure sensors can detect impact and location of a ball relative to a surface. Furthermore, applicant places no criticality on the type of sensor being used (page 7, lines 16-20 of the Specification). Therefore, any sensor capable of detecting ball position would be considered functionally equivalent to Oberan’s disclosed sensor.
Claim 14, Oberan shows the processing unit comprises logic circuitry (614). Oberan does not expressly disclose the inclusion of software however, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known for processing units comprising logic circuitry to employ software to control computerized circuitry.
Claim 15, Oberan shows the first wall and the second wall are walls of the court (figure 1). Oberan 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 Oberan 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 USPO 416.
Claim 16, as best understood, Oberan shows the first sensor field is provided at a first distance up to maximum 3 cm from the first surface and the second sensor field line at a second distance up to maximum 3 cm from the second surface. It appears that the claim is merely reciting that the pressure sensor is flush with the wall so that it would not impede with the ball and negatively impact the balls trajectory, such would be considered common sense and obvious to lay flat the pressure sensor with respect the ground or wall.
Claims 17 and 18, Oberan shows in every corner of the playing field at least two sensors are provided for monitoring the first surface and the second surface of a sideline or a baseline of the playing field (as shown in figure 1 of Oberan shows each corner of the enclosed court having two sensors (60, 90)). Oberan teaches the court is a handball/racketball court or the like. Therefore, sensors would be positioned on as many corners as deemed necessary to carry out the game.
Note: for claim 18, if the sensors are in every corner then they would naturally also be in diagonally opposite corners.
Claim 19, Oberan shows the playing field is a padel court and the device capable of detecting a "Bola Huevo" situation, whereby the first surface is a vertical wall and the second surface is the ground. Regarding “whereby in every corner of the playing field at least two sensors are provided for monitoring a sideline or a baseline via a first sensor line and a second sensor line (note the rejection of claims 17-18). Regarding an invalid ball is signalled when the ball first interrupts the first sensor line at a distance from the vertical wall and subsequently the second sensor line at a distance from the ground (see at least col. 10, lines 33-46).
Claim 21, see the rejection of similarly worded claims 1 and 18.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberan (4,528,548) in view of Lamberti et al (6,575,851) hereinafter (Lamberti).
Regarding claim 12, while Oberan does not explicitly refer to the performance of “smart measurements,” Lamberti discloses a rebound wall that may be used for ball sports such as disclosed by Oberan, including handball (col. 3, lines 9-14), wherein at least first and second sensors (col. 3, lines 53-62: embedded piezoelectric sensors/transducers in each corner) perform smart measurements such as detecting the point of impact, the speed of impact, timing between shots, etc. (abstract, col. 3, lines 15-31). Lamberti teaches that one may utilize this information in order to provide each player with desirable indicia/statistics and control scoring. It would have been obvious to include such measurements in the system of Oberan in order to allow players to compare statistics and ultimately improve performance.
Regarding claim 13, the examiner considers the various measurements discussed in the rejection of claim 12 with respect to Lamberti, to constitute at least “extra measurement parameters” (e.g., impact location, speed of impact, timing of shots, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner regrets any inconvenience this new ground of rejection may cause applicant. Upon further search and review it was determined the subject matter that was previously considered allowable was not allowable based on the newly applied reference.
Conclusion
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/
04 August 2026
Prosecution Insights