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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
Applicant’s response to the Final Office action of 1/19/2026 is acknowledged on 3/17/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US Patent No. 9,884,238) in view of Williamson (US Patent No. 9,782,652) and Messina (US Patent No. 5,071,122).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses a stimulus and sensor system (see all Figures), comprising: a body (202) comprising a resilient material (the material is disclosed that it could be a rubber in column 4 line 27 and rubber is considered as a resilient material), multiple light sources longitudinally spaced apart along the body (as shown in Figure 11, sensors 206 are shown as being longitudinally space apart along the body. Column 8 lines 53-56), in which a selected light source indicates a target location on the body to be struck by the bat (in column 8 lines 53-54, the sensor 206 are disclosed as including one or more light emitters and one or more light detector); and multiple sensors longitudinally spaced apart along the, in which the sensors detect movement of the body when the body is struck by the bat body (as discussed in column 8 lines 53-60. Detection of movement is disclosed in this reference). Tsai does not explicitly disclose the sensor as being motion sensor as recited in the instant application. However, Williamson discloses an invention that is in related field of the instant application and it discloses the use of sensor (350) that may comprise acceleration sensor (see column 3 lines 45-46. As it is well known, acceleration sensor can be considered a motion sensor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to let the sensors of Tsai to comprise acceleration/motion sensors so that the sensors could relay information pertaining to a quantity and a magnitude of physical blows to the impact detector sensor as discussed in column 46-48 of the Williamson reference. The combination of Tsai in view of Williamson do not disclose the use of a bat with which a person strikes the body. However, the system concept as taught by Tsai in view of Williamson disclose a sport system and Messina also discloses a sport system that has similar concept of a system that is to be used for baseball batting training that includes the use of a bat (see all figures the abstract of the Messina reference). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of the cited references. Tsai in view of Williamson configured to monitor and analyze the performance of a user’s strikes on targets, such as in a boxing context, including the use of sensors to detect impact and processing circuitry to evaluate, for example, force-related parameters. These references therefore teach capturing and analyzing impact data to assess user performance. The additional reference discloses analyzing the quality of a strike imparted by a baseball bat on a target, including evaluating characteristics of the impact beyond mere force, such as effectiveness, accuracy, or consistency, based on sensed impact data. It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of the Messina reference in the Tsai in view of Williamson reference in order to enhance the performance evaluation capabilities of the system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that both references are directed to analogous subject matter, namely, analyzing a user’s physical strike against a target using impact sensing and data processing, and relay on similar underlying principles and technologies. Moreover, the modification merely involves applying a known technique (i.e., analyzing qualitative characteristics of a strike based on sensed impact data) to known device (i.e., a strike-monitoring target system) ready for improvement, yielding predictable results. The combination would have predictably resulted in a system capable of not only measuring force, but also evaluating the quality of the strike, thereby providing more comprehensive feedback to the user. Additionally, there is no teaching away in any of the references, and the combination would not require undue experimentation, as the sensing and processing techniques are compatible and operate in a similar manner across the references. Accordingly, the claimed invention is unpatentable as being obvious over the combination of the cited references.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai does not disclose in which the light sources and the motion sensors are equally spaced apart along the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to space the sensors in any arrangement including being spaced equally spaced apart, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai discloses the light sources and the motion sensors as being recessed into the body (see location of the sensor as shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Tsai discloses in which each of the light sources is positioned proximate a respective one of the motion sensors (see rejection of claim 1 above. It is obvious that the light and the sensors are proximate. See Figures 4-6).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai discloses in which each of the motion sensors comprises an accelerometer (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai further comprising a frame configured to position the body in a vertical orientation (206), whereby the light sources are distributed vertically along the body (see Figures 2-6).
Regarding claim 7, Tsai further comprising a control system configured to activate one of the light sources, and to measure a difference in time between the activation of the one of the light sources and detection of motion by one of the motion sensors (the use of computer is disclosed in column 9 lines 22-28). The combination of the references teach activating one of the series of light sources along the body and subsequently measuring motion of the body possibly when struck by a bat. Because the references as combined necessarily perform these events at different times, determining the difference in time between them is a routine and predictable data-processing step that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Calculating time intervals between known events is a well-understood, conventional activity and would have been an obvious design choice to evaluate impact timing or user performance. Thus, the added limitation does not render the claim patentable over Tsai in view of Williamson.
Regarding claim 8, Tsai discloses in which the one of the light sources is selected at random (the device can be struck at random sensor location as a user wishes and that will cause the sensor to light up as recited).
Regarding claims 9-10, Tsai further comprising a control system configured to activate one of the light sources, and to measure a difference in location between the activated of the one of the light sources and a position at which the body is struck and in which the control system is configured to determine the position at which the body is struck based on detection of motion by the motion sensors (the use of electronic device as discussed in column 9 lines 10-43, the control system is considered to meet the recited feature).
Regarding claim 11, see rejections of claims 1 and 7 above. Tsai disclose a series of light sources spaced apart along a body (as shown in Figure 11, sensors 206 are shown as being longitudinally space apart along the body. Tsai in column 8 lines 53-56 discloses that the sensors (206) to including light emitters and one or more light detector). Tsai further comprising a control system configured to activate one of the light sources, and to measure a difference in time between the activation of the one of the light sources and detection of motion by one of the motion sensors (the use of computer is disclosed in column 9 lines 22-28). The combination of the references teach activating one of the series of light sources along the body and subsequently measuring motion of the body possibly when struck by a bat. Because the references as combined necessarily perform these events at different times, determining the difference in time between them is a routine and predictable data-processing step that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Calculating time intervals between known events is a well-understood, conventional activity and would have been an obvious design choice to evaluate impact timing or user performance. Although Tsai in view of Willamson may generally disclose structures such as a body with spaced light sources and sensor (in a kickboxing or striking context), the combination of these references do not disclose the use of a bat with which a person strikes the body. However, the system concept as taught by Tsai in view of Williamson disclose a sport system and Messina also discloses a sport system that has similar concept of a system that is to be used for baseball batting training that includes the use of a bat (see all figures the abstract of the Messina reference). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of the cited references. Tsai in view of Williamson configured to monitor and analyze the performance of a user’s strikes on targets, such as in a boxing context, including the use of sensors to detect impact and processing circuitry to evaluate, for example, force-related parameters. These references therefore teach capturing and analyzing impact data to assess user performance. The additional reference discloses analyzing the quality of a strike imparted by a baseball bat on a target, including evaluating characteristics of the impact beyond mere force, such as effectiveness, accuracy, or consistency, based on sensed impact data. It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of the Messina reference in the Tsai in view of Williamson reference in order to enhance the performance evaluation capabilities of the system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that both references are directed to analogous subject matter, namely, analyzing a user’s physical strike against a target using impact sensing and data processing, and relay on similar underlying principles and technologies. Moreover, the modification merely involves applying a known technique (i.e., analyzing qualitative characteristics of a strike based on sensed impact data) to known device (i.e., a strike-monitoring target system) ready for improvement, yielding predictable results. The combination would have predictably resulted in a system capable of not only measuring force, but also evaluating the quality of the strike, thereby providing more comprehensive feedback to the user. Additionally, there is no teaching away in any of the references, and the combination would not require undue experimentation, as the sensing and processing techniques are compatible and operate in a similar manner across the references. Accordingly, the claimed invention is unpatentable as being obvious over the combination of the cited references.
Regarding claim 12, in which the measuring motion is performed by a series of motion sensors vertically spaced apart along the body (Tsai discloses the light sources series of motion sensors that are vertically space along the body (see Figures 2-6)). The combination of the references teach activating one of the series of light sources along the body and subsequently measuring motion of the body possibly when struck by a bat. Because the references as combined necessarily perform these events at different times, determining the difference in time between them is a routine and predictable data-processing step that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Calculating time intervals between known events is a well-understood, conventional activity and would have been an obvious design choice to evaluate impact timing or user performance. Thus, the added limitation does not render the claim patentable over Tsai in view of Williamson.
Regarding claim 13, in which each of the motion sensors comprises an accelerometer (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, in which the measuring comprises measuring motion of the body at each of the motion sensors (see rejection of claim 1 above that discloses the use of acceleration sensor that is considered as a motion sensor when Tsai in view of William are combined).
Regarding claims 15-17, The combination of the references teach activating one of the series of light sources along the body as recited and subsequently measuring motion of the body possibly when struck by a bat. Because the references as combined necessarily perform these events at different times, determining the difference in time between the activating and measuring or determining a distance between the one of the series of light sources and location at which the body is struck as recited is a routine and predictable data-processing step that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Calculating time intervals between known events is a well-understood, conventional activity and would have been an obvious design choice to evaluate impact timing or user performance. Thus, the added limitation does not render the claim patentable over Tsai in view of Williamson.
Regarding claims 18-19, further comprising vertically spacing apart the motion sensors along the body (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Tsai does not disclose in which the light sources and the motion sensors are equally spaced apart along the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to space the sensors in any arrangement including being spaced equally spaced apart, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 1-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diveglio (US Patent Publication No. 2005/0085321 and/or in view of Williamson (US Patent No. 9,782,652).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Diveglio discloses a system (see all Figures) comprising: a body (20) comprising a resilient material (see paragraphs 27-28), a bat with which a person strikes the body (see figures 5-6 that show a person with a bat as recited): multiple light sources longitudinally spaced apart along the body (22), in which a selected light source indicates a target location on the body to be struck by the bat (as shown in Figure 3B, the center of the light where switch 63 is shown); and multiple sensors longitudinally spaced apart along the body (as shown in Figure 3B, sensors 68 are shown longitudinally spaced apart as recited). Diveglio discloses multiple sensors (68) identified as area sensors disposed in the body (68) and Diveglio discloses a sensor identified as power sensor that is in a form of a piezoelectric located in the stand (50) of the device (see paragraph 29). As it is known, Piezoelectric sensor is a motion sensor and this sensor detects movement of the body (see paragraph 26). However, Diveglio does not explicitly disclose if the multiple sensors (68) in the body (20) could be motion sensors. It is noted that the sensors (68) in the reference are positioned to correspond to different strike zones and are configured to generate signals indicative of contact location and force. Diveglio clearly teaches that the sensors detect physical interaction with the body upon impact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the plurality of sensors disclosed by Diveglio as motion sensors. This is because motion sensors represent a well-known and predictable class of sensors capable of detecting movement, vibration, and impact. Substituting or implementing Diveglio’s sensors as motion sensors merely involves the use of a known equivalent technology to perform the same function of detecting impact events. Furthermore, configuring all of the plurality of sensors in the Diveglio to be motion sensors would have been an obvious design choice motivated by simply, uniformity, and ease of signal processing. Using the same type of sensor across the system reduces complexity in manufacturing, calibration, and data interpretation, which are recognized design considerations in the art. Modifying Diveglio so that the plurality of sensors to be motion sensors would have yielded predictable results and does not require undue experimentation.
Alternatively, examiner is providing additional rejection by combining Diveglio with the Williamson reference to show that the use of motion sensors in sports where there is impact on a body is not a new concept. Williamson discloses the use of sensor (350) that may comprise acceleration sensor (see column 3 lines 45-46. As it is well known, acceleration sensor can be considered a motion sensor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to let the sensors of Diveglio to comprise acceleration/motion sensors so that the sensors could relay information pertaining to a quantity and a magnitude of physical blows to the impact detector sensor as discussed in column 46-48 of the Williamson reference.
Regarding claim 2, Diveglio discloses the light sources (22) and the sensors (68) as being equally spaced apart along the body (see all Figures).
Regarding claim 3, in paragraphs 10 and 28 of Diveglio, it is disclosed that the light sources and the motion sensors could be recessed into the body.
Regarding claim 4, the light sources (22) is positioned proximate a respective one of the motion sensors (68).
Regarding claim 6, Diveglio discloses a frame configured to position the body in a vertical orientation (as shown in Figure 6, combination of 30 and 50 are considered as a frame), whereby the light sources are distributed vertically along the body (see all Figures).
Regarding claims 7-10, Diveglio discloses a control system configured to activate one of the light sources, and to measure a difference in time between the activation of the one of the light sources and detection of motion by one of the motion sensors (processor 62. See paragraphs 30-33, 36-37). The references as combined is capable of performing the recited functions. Diveglio discloses in which the one of the light sources is selected at random (see paragraph 33).
Regarding claims 13-14, see rejection of claims 1 and 5 above.
Regarding claims 15-17, determining the difference in time between the activating and measuring or determining a distance between the one of the series of light sources and location at which the body is struck as recited is a routine and predictable data-processing step that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Calculating time intervals between known events is a well-understood, conventional activity and would have been an obvious design choice to evaluate impact timing or user performance.
Regarding claim 18, as shown in Figure 3B of Diveglio, motion sensors (68) are shown as being vertically spaced.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diveglio.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Diveglio discloses a method of evaluating batting performance (see abstract and all Figures), the method comprising: activating one of a series of light sources (22) spaced apart along a body (20); and measuring motion of the body due to being struck by a bat after the activating (in paragraph 26 it is disclosed that the support arm has a hinge or rotator 40 and the hinge is a rotating hinge that includes a spring force mechanism (45) which include a piezoelectric sensor which biases support arm (30) having a telescoping member 35 and housing 20 in an upright position and detects the force placed on housing 20 when it is struck and in paragraph 31 it is disclosed that the housing (20) when hit, it rotates against stand (50) so that support arm rotates for example in a substantially clockwise manner so that it rotates and the distance traveled by housing (20) and the force placed on spring force mechanism (45) in this rotating manner registers a signal which is sent either through a wire or wirelessly to processor (62). The registered signal is considered as measured motion). It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Regarding claims 19-20, as shown in Figures 1,4 and 6, light sources (22) as shown as being vertically and equally spaced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references as applied in the prior rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 J. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711