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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [003] line 4 “[…] requires the entire score to Be called before the ball is served. In doubles matcHes, the entire score is made up of […]” contains minor typographical errors and should read “[…] requires the entire score to be called before the ball is served. In doubles matches, the entire score is made up of […]”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 8, 12, and 20 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.
The term “reliable” in claims 1 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reliable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How or why the device as claimed is ‘reliable’ is not outlined in the claims as an objective and tangible measure of the device’s structure, operation, or functionality.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the support substrate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A support substrate” is established in claim 7, however, claim 8 is dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the ‘indicators’ limitation will be interpreted to include indicators “arrows or other shapes” as claimed as well as any other symbol or structure that may reasonably serve as an indicator within the scope of the invention.
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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hronek (US 8904951 B1) further in view of Scruggs (US 4158342 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Hronek discloses (in at least figures 1-7 and 22-23, the description, and the claims) a wearable, reliable, multi-sport scorekeeping device (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: wearable device for recording game data 100), comprising:
a strap assembly (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: band 102);
a housing, attached to the strap assembly (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: “device 100 preferably includes […], a base plate 104 attached to the band 102, a front cover 108 disposed on the base plate 104, a back cover 106 sandwiched between the front cover 108 and the base plate 104, and a plurality of movable strips 112 slidably disposed between the front cover 108 and the back cover 106.” See also fig.’s 5-7.);
a plate, disposed at least in part within the housing (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: back cover 106. See also fig.’s 5-7 and col. 10 line 39- col. 11 line 2);
Hronek does not explicitly disclose wherein the plate is ferromagnetic or the device comprising one or more magnets.
Scruggs discloses an analogous art (fig. 1 and col. 1 line 55- col. 2 line 13: scoring device 2 ) comprising a ferromagnetic plate, disposed at least in part within a band; and one or more magnets (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 3 lines 55-62: portion of band 2 comprising scoring characters 20 onto which scoring markers 22 are attached via attachment means 26. See col. 3 lines 43-45: the attachment means 26 may comprise magnets. When the attachment means 26 comprises magnets, as taught by Scruggs, the portion of the band 2 comprising scoring characters 20 is a ferromagnetic plate and each scoring marker is a magnet.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ferromagnetic plate and magnets, as taught by Scruggs, to be included in the device of Hronek to allow the user to record the complex and unique scoring arrangements required by racket sports while remaining simple to operate, easy to read, and reasonable in cost to manufacture (Scruggs fig.’s 1-2, col. 1 lines 55-30, and col. 3 lines 43-45).
Regarding Claim 2: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 1, and Hronek further discloses wherein the plate has indicia thereon, indicating points, scores, or other information (fig.’s 5-7 and col. 10 line 39- col. 11 line 2: back cover 106 includes a plurality of number sets 126, 128, and 130 representing the number of balls, strikes, and outs.).
Scruggs discloses wherein the plate is ferromagnetic and the motivation to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 1, and Hronek discloses the device comprising a printed sheet disposed between the plate and the housing, wherein the printed sheet has indicia thereon, indicating points, scores, or other information (col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] printed on the back cover 106 using permanent ink or paint […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method […] formed by heat fusing a material having a different coloration into the material of the back cover 106”).
Scruggs discloses wherein the plate is ferromagnetic and the motivation to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 1, and Hronek further discloses wherein the housing comprises a bottom portion and a top portion (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27:, a base plate 104 attached to the band 102, a front cover 108 disposed on the base plate 104. See also fig.’s 5-7.), wherein the bottom portion is attached to the strap assembly (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: a base plate 104 attached to the band 102) and wherein the top portion comprises opening therein such the one or more scoring markers may be attached to the plate (fig. 5: viewing apertures 118. See col. 9 lines 52-60: “front cover 108 of the device 100 is provided with a plurality of grooves 118, each one accommodating a respective movable strip 112. The grooves 118 are substantially centered on each of the 55 viewing apertures 110 in a lateral direction of the front cover 108, and have a width that is slightly larger than that of the movable strips 112 so that a small amount of clearance is provided between the lateral sides of the movable strips 112 and the lateral sides of each groove 118.”).
Scruggs discloses wherein the plate is ferromagnetic and the scoring markers comprise one or more magnets (Scruggs col. 3 lines 43-45). The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 4, and Hronek further discloses wherein the bottom portion and top portion of the housing are attached together via a mechanical attachment, adhesive, heat welding, or fasteners (col. 9 lines 28-34: “A variety of attachment means may be used to affix the front cover 108 to the base plate 104 including, but not limited to, the use of an adhesive (e.g., a glue), fasteners, or by heat fusing the two materials together.”).
Regarding Claim 6: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 4, and Hronek further discloses wherein the bottom portion and the top portion of the housing are integrally formed (col. 9 lines 28-34: “A variety of attachment means may be used to affix the front cover 108 to the base plate 104 including, […] heat fusing the two materials together.” Two heat-fused materials are understood to be integrally formed.).
Regarding Claim 7: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising a support substrate, configured to support the plate and attach to the housing or the strap assembly (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: base plate 104 attached to the band 102 and supporting back cover 106. Note: The base plate 104 as disclosed by Hronek teaches the limitations of both the support substrate and bottom portion of the housing as claimed.).
Scruggs discloses wherein the plate is ferromagnetic and the motivation to combine is the same as for claim 1.
In the present instance, Hronek’s base plate 104 anticipates both the housing portion as claimed in claim 4 and the support substrate of claim 7, as it is configured to support the plate (back cover 106) and attaches to the housing (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27).
Furthermore, it has been held that duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the support substrate in addition to the back portion of the housing as a structural redundancy contributing to device suitable for withstanding high activity sporting environments (See Hronek col. 2 lines 42-61).
Regarding Claim 9: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 1, and Hronek discloses the device further comprising row separators, the row separators raised and dividing the plate into separate portions or rows (fig. 1, fig. 5, and col. 9 lines 52-60: “front cover 108 of the device 100 is provided with a plurality of grooves 118, each one accommodating a respective movable strip 112.” See also fig. 7 and col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method”).
Scruggs discloses wherein the plate is ferromagnetic and the motivation to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 9, and Hronek further discloses wherein the row separators are integrally formed into the housing (fig. 1, fig. 5, and col. 9 lines 52-60: “front cover 108 of the device 100 is provided with a plurality of grooves 118, each one accommodating a respective movable strip 112.” See also fig. 7 and col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method”).
Regarding Claim 11: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 9, wherein the row separators are attached to the printed material or plate (fig. 1, fig. 5, and col. 9 lines 52-60: “front cover 108 of the device 100 is provided with a plurality of grooves 118, each one accommodating a respective movable strip 112.” Note: As taught in col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27 front cover 108 comprising grooves 118 is disposed on the base plate 104. See also fig. 7 and col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method”).
Scruggs discloses wherein the plate is ferromagnetic and the motivation to combine is the same as for claim 1.
Claims 8, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hronek and Scruggs as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hernandez (US 20120104058 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Hronek in view of Scruggs discloses the device of claim 1, and Hronek discloses the device further comprising an attachment means, attached to the housing or the support substrate (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: base plate 104 attached to the band 102)
Hronek and Scruggs do not explicitly disclose a band attached to the housing or supporting substrate.
Hernandez discloses an analogous art (fig. 1A, fig. 5A, par. 33, and par. 43: wearable device) comprising a band, attached to the housing or the support substrate (fig. 5A and par. 43: sleeve 520 attached to rear surface 514 of pocket housing 510 ), the band having an opening therein through which the strap assembly is inserted at least in part (fig. 5A and par. 43: “The sleeve 520 allows a wearer to secure the pocket 510 on, for example, a belt 522. In some embodiments, the sleeve 520 may allow attachment of the pocket 510 to, for example, a purse strap, or backpack strap.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the band, as taught by Hernandez, to be included in the device of Hronek and Scruggs thereby allowing the device housing to be attachable to straps of bags, belts, and articles of clothing (fig. 5A and par. 43).
Regarding Claim 12: Hronek discloses (in at least figures 1-7 and 22-23, the description, and the claims) a wearable, reliable, multi-sport scorekeeping device (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: wearable device for recording game data 100), comprising:
a strap assembly (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: band 102);
an attachment means, through which at least a portion of the strap assembly is inserted (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: base plate 104 attached to the band 102),
a housing, the housing comprising a top portion and a bottom portion (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: “device 100 preferably includes […], a base plate 104 attached to the band 102, a front cover 108 disposed on the base plate 104, a back cover 106 sandwiched between the front cover 108 and the base plate 104, and a plurality of movable strips 112 slidably disposed between the front cover 108 and the back cover 106.” See also fig.’s 5-7.);
a plate, disposed at least in part within the housing (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: back cover 106. See also fig.’s 5-7 and col. 10 line 39- col. 11 line 2);
a support substrate, disposed at least in part within the housing between the plate and the band (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: base plate 104 attached to the band 102 and supporting back cover 106. Note: The base plate 104 as disclosed by Hronek teaches the limitations of both the support substrate and bottom portion of the housing as claimed.);
a printed sheet disposed between the ferromagnetic plate and the top portion of the housing, wherein the printed sheet has indicia thereon, indicating points, scores, or other information (col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] printed on the back cover 106 using permanent ink or paint […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method […] formed by heat fusing a material having a different coloration into the material of the back cover 106”).
In the present instance, Hronek’s base plate 104 anticipates both the housing portion as claimed in claim 4 and the support substrate of claim 7, as it is configured to support the plate (back cover 106) and attaches to the housing (fig.’s 1-3 and col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27).
Furthermore, it has been held that duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the support substrate in addition to the back portion of the housing as a structural redundancy contributing to device suitable for withstanding high activity sporting environments (See Hronek col. 2 lines 42-61).
Hronek does not explicitly disclose wherein the plate is ferromagnetic or the device comprising one or more magnets.
Scruggs discloses an analogous art (fig. 1 and col. 1 line 55- col. 2 line 13: scoring device 2 ) comprising a ferromagnetic plate, disposed at least in part within a band; and one or more magnets (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 3 lines 55-62: portion of band 2 comprising scoring characters 20 onto which scoring markers 22 are attached via attachment means 26. See col. 3 lines 43-45: the attachment means 26 may comprise magnets. When the attachment means 26 comprises magnets, as taught by Scruggs, the portion of the band 2 comprising scoring characters 20 is a ferromagnetic plate and each scoring marker is a magnet.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ferromagnetic plate and magnets, as taught by Scruggs, to be included in the device of Hronek to allow the user to record the complex and unique scoring arrangements required by racket sports while remaining simple to operate, easy to read, and reasonable in cost to manufacture (Scruggs fig.’s 1-2, col. 1 lines 55-30, and col. 3 lines 43-45).
Hronek and Scruggs do not explicitly disclose a band attached to the housing or supporting substrate.
Hernandez discloses an analogous art (fig. 1A, fig. 5A, par. 33, and par. 43: wearable device) comprising a band, attached to the bottom portion of the housing or the support substrate (fig. 5A and par. 43: sleeve 520 attached to rear surface 514 of pocket housing 510 ), comprising an opening therein through which at least a portion of the strap assembly is inserted (fig. 5A and par. 43: “The sleeve 520 allows a wearer to secure the pocket 510 on, for example, a belt 522. In some embodiments, the sleeve 520 may allow attachment of the pocket 510 to, for example, a purse strap, or backpack strap.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the band, as taught by Hernandez, to be included in the device of Hronek and Scruggs thereby allowing the device housing to be attachable to straps of bags, belts, and articles of clothing (fig. 5A and par. 43).
Regarding Claim 13: Hronek and Scruggs in view of Hernandez disclose the device of claim 12, and Hronek further discloses wherein the bottom portion and top portion of the housing are attached together via a mechanical attachment, adhesive, heat welding, or fasteners (col. 9 lines 28-34: “A variety of attachment means may be used to affix the front cover 108 to the base plate 104 including, but not limited to, the use of an adhesive (e.g., a glue), fasteners, or by heat fusing the two materials together.”).
Regarding Claim 14: Hronek and Scruggs in view of Hernandez disclose the device of claim 12, and Hronek discloses the device further comprising row separators, the row separators dividing the printed sheet into separate portions or rows (fig. 1, fig. 5, and col. 9 lines 52-60: “front cover 108 of the device 100 is provided with a plurality of grooves 118, each one accommodating a respective movable strip 112.” See also fig. 7 and col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method”)..
Regarding Claim 15: Hronek and Scruggs in view of Hernandez disclose the device of claim 14, and Hronek further discloses wherein the row separators are integrally formed into the housing (fig. 1, fig. 5, and col. 9 lines 52-60: “front cover 108 of the device 100 is provided with a plurality of grooves 118, each one accommodating a respective movable strip 112.” See also fig. 7 and col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method”).
Regarding Claim 16: Hronek and Scruggs in view of Hernandez disclose the device of claim 14, and Hronek further discloses wherein the row separators are attached to the printed material or plate (fig. 1, fig. 5, and col. 9 lines 52-60: “front cover 108 of the device 100 is provided with a plurality of grooves 118, each one accommodating a respective movable strip 112.” See also fig. 7 and col. 11 lines 3- 15: “pluralities of numbers 126, 128, 130 and their associated borders 124 are inscribed on the back cover 106 using various known techniques. For example, […] imprinted into the material of back cover 106 by an engraving method.” See also col. 8 line 47- col. 9 line 27: “a front cover 108 disposed on the base plate 104, a back cover 106 sandwiched between the front cover 108 and the base plate 104, and a plurality of movable strips 112 slidably disposed between the front cover 108 and the back cover 106.”).
Scruggs discloses wherein the plate is ferromagnetic and the motivation to combine is the same as for claim 12.
Regarding Claim 17: Hronek and Scruggs in view of Hernandez disclose the device of claim 12, and Hronek further discloses wherein the strap assembly is adjustable to loosen or tighten the strap on a user (col. 9 lines 4-27: band 102 is designed to flex and adjust to varying sizes of different user’s limbs.).
Regarding Claim 20: Hronek and Scruggs in view of Hernandez disclose the device of claim 12, and Scruggs further discloses wherein the one or more magnets are attached to indicators, such as arrows or other shapes (fig.’s 1-2 and col. 3 lines 55-62: magnetic markers are attached to indicators denoted by numbers, rectangular shapes, printed letters, and “+” and “-” symbols).
The motivation to combine is the same as for claim 12.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hronek, Scruggs, and Hernandez as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Secord (US 20100083698 A1).
Regarding Claim 18: Hronek and Scruggs in view of Hernandez disclose the device of claim 12, and Scruggs further discloses one or more magnets (col. 3 lines 43-45: the attachment means 26 may comprise magnets).
Scruggs does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more magnets are neodymium magnets.
Secord discloses an analogous art (fig. 1, abstract, and par.’s 10-13: magnetic scoring tennis bracelet) comprising one or more magnets that are neodymium magnets (abstract: “bracelet, is comprised of neodymium magnetic components, two of which are cubes imprinted with numbers or symbols designating game score points, and which are manually adjusted by the wearer to correspond to the game score as each point is played.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the neodymium magnets of Secord to be included as the one or more magnets of Hronek, Scruggs, and Hernandez as a functionally effective material that allows for stable manual control of score indicating elements while also being inexpensive (Secord par. 9 and par.’s 12-13).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hronek, Scruggs, and Hernandez as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of JP 3107568 U (Hereinafter JP’568)1.
Regarding Claim 19: Hronek, Scruggs, and Hernandez disclose the device of claim 12, and Scruggs further discloses one or more magnets (col. 3 lines 43-45: the attachment means 26 may comprise magnets).
Scruggs does not disclose wherein the one or more magnets have an opening or orifice therein
JP’568 discloses an analogous art (fig.’s 1-3: magnetic tennis scoreboard) wherein one or more magnets have an opening or orifice therein, through which printed indicia may be seen (fig. 2 and page 5 final paragraph - page 6 first paragraph: “pointer 26 may be made of a transparent material, and a ring-shaped sheet magnet may be attached to the end portion. This is convenient because the character can be seen from above when it is held on the character.” ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ring-shaped magnets of JP’568 to be included as the one or more magnets of Hronek, Scruggs, and Hernandez to allow underlying indicia to be visible and to consolidate space on the scorekeeper (JP’568 fig. 2 and page 5 final paragraph - page 6 first paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Gabriel (US 6210296 B1) discloses certain limitations of claims 1-6, 12, 14-15, and 17.
Pascale (US 20170007008 A1) discloses certain limitations of claims 1-6, 12, 14-17 and 20.
Rugh (US 20050187042 A1) discloses certain limitations of claims 1-6, 12, 14-15, and 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/EVAN MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/20/26
1 Citations made to attached translation of description.