DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “include impact sensor” should read “include an impact sensor.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, 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). Claims 2-6 and 8-13 are dependent on these claims and inherit these deficiencies.
Claims 1, 7, and 14 recite the limitation "the puck." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the pass and shot.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the limitation “the impact or movement of the puck.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. Specifically, the limitation “can interchangeably serve as the host or slave when selected (or not)” fails to claim anything of substance as the “(or not)” essentially acts as a blanket limitation that allows for the claim to be interpreted in a way that the role of host or slave is determined arbitrarily. Claims 15-19 are dependent on claim 14 and inherit these deficiencies.
These elements will be interpreted such that any device capable of providing the claimed features would be sufficient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable upon correction of the above-noted deficiencies.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of a system and method as described in the claimed invention with a software application, one or more interactive goal targets and passing devices, and selecting, by the player, a game mode on a software application, segregating on the user interface of the software application the goal targets and passing devices into two groups in order to distinguish the goal targets and passing devices, wherein the goal targets and passing devices are segregated such that the software application sends commands to respective passing devices and goal targets that are intended to receive the pass and shot.
While the prior art commonly teaches sports training systems with illuminated targets (see at least Yoo et al, US 2022/0370880, fig. 3A), and passing practice (see Marty et al, US 2018/0322337, par. [0040]), there is no teaching in the prior art of an integration of both passing and shooting targets presented on a software application segregating the passing and shooting targets on the interface. While there are examples of sports training systems utilizing software in conjunction with targets (see Meloy et al, US 2023/0372804), there is no indication that the software of Meloy would include both passing devices and goal targets, much less presented in a segregated manner and sending commands to the respective passing devices and goal targets intended to receive the pass and shot. Such a modification and combination would require undue experimentation and impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715