DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the claim(s) has/have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 6 includes limitations directed towards "6. A method for using a sports training system during pitching lessons, comprising acts of: positioning one or more foot pads upon a mat, the mat having a pitching plate and a plurality of grid zones;"
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 6 includes limitations directed towards "positioning one or more feet upon the one or more foot pads; and performing a pitching motion while moving feet between the one or more foot pads."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 7 includes limitations directed towards "7. The method as set forth in Claim 6, wherein the plurality of grid zones includes at least a drive-lane grid having a series of parallel markings traveling away from the pitching plate and a stabilizing foot grid adjacent to the pitching plate such that the stabilizing foot grid is sandwiched between the drive-lane grid and the pitching plate, and such that when positioning the one or more foot pads upon the mat, a first foot pad is positioned in the stabilizing foot grid adjacent to the pitching plate and a second foot pad is positioned in the drive-lane grid. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 8 includes limitations directed towards "8. The method as set forth in Claim 7, wherein the first foot pad is positioned in an orientation substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the pitching plate, while the second foot pad is position in an orientation that is substantially perpendicular to the first foot pad. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 9 includes limitations directed towards "9. The method as set forth in Claim 8, wherein the plurality of grid zones includes a sweep grid adjacent to the drive-lane grid such that when positioning the one or more foot pads upon the mat, a third foot pad is positioned within the sweep grid adjacent to the second foot pad. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 10 includes limitations directed towards "10. The method as set forth in Claim 9, wherein when positioning one or more feet upon the one or more foot pads, a user's rear foot is positioned upon the first foot pad. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 11 includes limitations directed towards "11. The method as set forth in Claim 10, wherein performing a pitching motion while moving feet between the one or more foot pads further comprises acts of: raising a front stride foot; stretching the front stride foot forward until placing the front stride foot upon the second foot pad; and bringing the rear foot forward until the rear foot lands upon the third foot pad."
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 12 includes limitations directed towards "12. The method as set forth in Claim 11, wherein while stretching the front stride foot forward until placing the front stride foot upon the second foot pad, moving the user's gloved hand in a sweeping motion over a sweeping arrow formed on the mat that leads away from the pitching plate and forward through the one or more sweep grids. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 13 includes limitations directed towards "13. The method as set forth in Claim 8, wherein the third foot pad is positioned within the drive-lane grid in an orientation that is substantially parallel to the first foot pad. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 14 includes limitations directed towards "14. The method as set forth in Claim 13, wherein when positioning one or more feet upon the one or more foot pads, a user's rear foot is positioned upon the first foot pad while the user's front stride foot is positioned on the third foot pad. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Claim 15 includes limitations directed towards "15. The method as set forth in Claim 14, wherein performing a pitching motion while moving feet between the one or more foot pads further comprises acts of: raising the front stride foot from the third foot pad; and stretching the stride foot forward until placing the front stride foot upon the second foot pad while moving the user's gloved hand in a sweeping motion over a sweeping arrow formed on the mat that leads away from the pitching plate and forward through the one or more sweep grids. "
These limitations are directed towards managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Accordingly, each of the claim(s) recited above recite an abstract idea.
Further, the dependent claim(s), if present, merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Prong Two Considerations
This/these judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application because the examiner does not find one of the following to exist:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Furthermore, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of the claims indicated above (and their respective dependent Claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims indicated above (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the above identified claim(s) (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Moreover, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea wherein if computer elements are claimed they are additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea(s) identified above (and their respective dependent claims) is/are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of the claims identified above (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of the claim(s) indicated above (or their dependents) include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the additional elements in the claim(s) identified above (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements (if any are present) nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Prong Two Considerations (as indicated above) are not met and the examiner does not find a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to exist in the claim(s) to render the claim(s) significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim(s) indicated above (and their dependent claims) are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 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)(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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Connors (US 20130157785 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Connors teaches 6. A method for using a sports training system during pitching lessons, comprising acts of: positioning one or more foot pads upon a mat, the mat having a pitching plate and a plurality of grid zones; See Fig. 1; (12)(30), positioning one or more feet upon the one or more foot pads; and performing a pitching motion while moving feet between the one or more foot pads. See Fig. 1; (20a)(20b)(20c)(20d) the motion of pitching may be considered an inclusive use in view of the batting movements of Connors.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connors (US 20130157785 A1) in view of Bott (US 4805913 A).
Regarding claim 1, Connors teaches 1. A sports training system, comprising: a mat having a pitching plate; and See Fig. 1; (12)(30), a plurality of foot pads for placement in one or more of the plurality of grid zones. See Fig. 1; (20a)(20b)(20c)(20d).
Bott does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a plurality of grid zones formed thereon See Fig. 1 which clearly shows the grid zones which can be easily incorporated into the Connors mat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 2, Bott teaches 2. The sports training system as set forth in Claim 1, wherein the plurality of grid zones includes a drive-lane grid, the drive-lane grid having a series of parallel markings traveling away from the pitching plate. See Fig. 1 Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, the examiner finds no new and unobvious functional relationship to exist between the grids and mat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 3, Bott teaches 3. The sports training system as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the plurality of grid zones includes a stabilizing foot grid adjacent to the pitching plate such that the stabilizing foot grid is sandwiched between the drive-lane grid and the pitching plate. See Fig. 1 Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, the examiner finds no new and unobvious functional relationship to exist between the grids and mat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 4, Bott teaches 4. The sports training system as set forth in Claim 3, wherein the plurality of grid zones includes one or more sweep grids adjacent to the drive-lane grid. See Fig. 1. Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, the examiner finds no new and unobvious functional relationship to exist between the grids and mat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 5, Bott teaches 5. The sports training system as set forth in Claim 4, further comprising one or more sweeping arrows formed on the mat, the one or more sweeping arrows leading away from the pitching plate and forward through the one or more sweep grids. See Fig. 1 Additionally, the courts held that "Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability….[T]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate." (See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) As such, the examiner finds no new and unobvious functional relationship to exist between the sweeping arrows and mat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 7, Bott teaches 7. The method as set forth in Claim 6, wherein the plurality of grid zones includes at least a drive-lane grid having a series of parallel markings traveling away from the pitching plate and a stabilizing foot grid adjacent to the pitching plate such that the stabilizing foot grid is sandwiched between the drive-lane grid and the pitching plate, and such that when positioning the one or more foot pads upon the mat, a first foot pad is positioned in the stabilizing foot grid adjacent to the pitching plate and a second foot pad is positioned in the drive-lane grid. See Fig. 1 which clearly shows the grid zones which can be easily incorporated into the Connors mat. The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 8, Bott teaches 8. The method as set forth in Claim 7, wherein the first foot pad is positioned in an orientation substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the pitching plate, while the second foot pad is position in an orientation that is substantially perpendicular to the first foot pad. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 9, Bott teaches 9. The method as set forth in Claim 8, wherein the plurality of grid zones includes a sweep grid adjacent to the drive-lane grid such that when positioning the one or more foot pads upon the mat, a third foot pad is positioned within the sweep grid adjacent to the second foot pad. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 10, Bott teaches 10. The method as set forth in Claim 9, wherein when positioning one or more feet upon the one or more foot pads, a user's rear foot is positioned upon the first foot pad. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired. The placement of the user’s foot would easily be achievable if desired by the user with the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 11, Bott teaches 11. The method as set forth in Claim 10, wherein performing a pitching motion while moving feet between the one or more foot pads further comprises acts of: raising a front stride foot; stretching the front stride foot forward until placing the front stride foot upon the second foot pad; and bringing the rear foot forward until the rear foot lands upon the third foot pad. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired. The placement of the user’s foot would easily be achievable if desired by the user with the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 12, Bott teaches 12. The method as set forth in Claim 11, wherein while stretching the front stride foot forward until placing the front stride foot upon the second foot pad, moving the user's gloved hand in a sweeping motion over a sweeping arrow formed on the mat that leads away from the pitching plate and forward through the one or more sweep grids. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired. The placement of the user’s foot would easily be achievable if desired by the user with the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 13, Bott teaches 13. The method as set forth in Claim 8, wherein the third foot pad is positioned within the drive-lane grid in an orientation that is substantially parallel to the first foot pad. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 14, Bott teaches 14. The method as set forth in Claim 13, wherein when positioning one or more feet upon the one or more foot pads, a user's rear foot is positioned upon the first foot pad while the user's front stride foot is positioned on the third foot pad. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired. The placement of the user’s foot would easily be achievable if desired by the user with the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Regarding claim 15, Bott teaches 15. The method as set forth in Claim 14, wherein performing a pitching motion while moving feet between the one or more foot pads further comprises acts of: raising the front stride foot from the third foot pad; and stretching the stride foot forward until placing the front stride foot upon the second foot pad while moving the user's gloved hand in a sweeping motion over a sweeping arrow formed on the mat that leads away from the pitching plate and forward through the one or more sweep grids. See Fig. 1 The different placements of the foot pads on the mat would be inclusive of the combination as the user may place the pads on the grid as desired. The placement of the user’s foot and the different motions would easily be achievable if desired by the user with the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Connors with Bott to provide a stance measurement grid to the user of the mat. (See 6:9+).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brend US 20110003652 A1, Opdyke US 20060030435 A1, DeMarch US 20170128816 A1, Halonen US 20020160850 A1, Grabowski US 20010036869 A1, Lorang US 4023810 A, Crossot US 2777697 A, O'Brien US 4311312 A - which deal with training mats and/or foot pad.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711