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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 is unclear in that it recites “a mobile device” more than once. It is unclear if the claim requires multiple mobile devices or a singular mobile device.
Claims 32-40 are unclear for dependency from claim 31.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 26, 28 and 30-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorme US 8182373.
Regarding claim 21, Delorme discloses an interactive training apparatus comprising:
a
one or more visual indicators (20);
a detector (24) configured to detect a presence of a game accessory (16) in proximity to the detector (col. 2 ln. 30-35);
a main control unit (26)
one or more memory units (col. 5 ln. 30-35) storing instructions (col. 4 ln 10-20) that, when executed by the main control unit, cause the main control unit to perform operations comprising:
receiving data frames from the interactive targets of the plurality of platform components (col. 2 ln. 41-49, the data frame being light on/off and score recorder);
determining a quantity of detectors in an interconnected set of platform components based on data contained in the data frames (Fig. 2); and
executing a selected routine of a plurality of routines (42) stored in the one or more memory units based at least in part on the determined quantity of detectors, wherein the selected routine defines a sequence of activation of the visual indicators in the interconnected set of platform components.
The limitations of the operations describe what the apparatus does, and is not a further limitation of what the apparatus is. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). See MPEP 2114. Therefore, the operations are not given patentable weight.
Delorme does not a plurality of platform components, each platform component configured to interconnect with at least one of the other platform components to form the planar playing surface.
It has been held, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since the platform component is used to provide a playing surface and another interconnected platform would only produce an expected increase the practice surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional platform components in order to provide an increase in the size of the practice surface. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 22, Delorme further discloses that each particular interactive target comprises a microcontroller unit (26a) configured to control activation and deactivation of the one or more visual indicators of the particular interactive target.
Regarding claim 26, Delorme further teaches
However, it does not teach that the communication is done wirelessly to a mobile device. Applicant is merely identifying a modern computing device. Since Delorme teaches a generic computing device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the computing device from a generic computer by simply substituting in a modern mobile phone in order to execute the software instructions, reduce the size of the device, improve portability and ease of use for contemporary users.
Regarding claim 27, Delorme further teaches that the detectors in the plurality of platform components communicate with the main control unit via at least one communication bus (inherent in electronic communications between the CPU of a processor and memory); or the detectors in the plurality of platform components communicate with the main control unit via a daisy chain configuration.
Regarding claim 28, Delorme further discloses that each of the detectors comprises one of a reed switch or a hall effect sensor; and the game accessory comprises an embedded magnet (col. 3 ln. 39-49).
Regarding claim 30, Delorme does not teach the limitations thereof. However, the limitations thereof are a recitation of what the apparatus does, not a further limitation of what the apparatus is. Therefore, the content of the claim is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 31, Delorme discloses an interactive training apparatus comprising:
a platform(14) comprising a planar playing surface of the interactive training apparatus (Fig. 1);
a plurality of interactive targets (22) embedded in the planar playing surface, each interactive target comprising:
one or more visual indicators (20); and
a detector (24) configured to detect a presence of a game accessory (16) in proximity to the detector;
a
a main control unit (26); and
one or more memory units (col. 5 ln. 30-35) storing instructions that, when executed by the main control unit, cause the main control unit to perform operations comprising:
receiving data indicating a presence of the game accessory in proximity to one or more of the interactive targets (from the sensor);
executing a routine (42) defining a sequence of activation of the visual indicators; and
communicating using the
The limitations of the operations describe what the apparatus does, and is not a further limitation of what the apparatus is. Therefore, the operations are not given patentable weight. See claim 21 above.
Regarding claims 32-34, Delorme does not teach the limitations thereof. However, the limitations thereof are a recitation of what the apparatus does, not a further limitation of what the apparatus is. Therefore, the content of the claims are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 35, Delorme does not a plurality of platform components interconnected to form the planar playing surface.
It has been held, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Since the platform component is used to provide a playing surface and another interconnected platform would only produce an expected increase the practice surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional platform components in order to provide an increase in the size of the practice surface. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claims 36-40, Delorme does not teach the limitations thereof. However, the limitations thereof are a recitation of what the apparatus does, not a further limitation of what the apparatus is. Therefore, the content of the claims are not given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorme US 8182373 in view of Daoust US 4607842.
Regarding claim 23, Delorme does not teach the limitations thereof. Delorme teaches hocky training apparatus with an interconnection mechanism (Fig. 2) along one edge of the platform component, the interconnection mechanism (31’,32) configured to physically couple the platform component to an adjacent platform component. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the interconnection between the platform components as taught by Delorme by utilizing a physical coupling as taught by Daoust in order to interconnect the platforms.
Regarding claim 24, the combination further teaches that the interconnection mechanism comprises a plurality of tabs and a plurality of slots (Id).
Regarding claim 25, the combination further teaches that the interconnection mechanism must necessarily comprises a physical cable interconnection that provides an electrical connection between the platform component and the adjacent platform component (necessary to illuminate the LED target lights).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorme US 8182373 in view of Theriault US 20220054927.
Regarding claim 29, Delorme does not teach that the game accessory comprises an embedded radio frequency identification chip or an embedded near field communication chip; and each of the detectors is configured to detect the radio frequency identification chip or the embedded near field communication chip.
Theriault so teaches ([0007]) in order to determine where the puck is located. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the game accessory (puck) as taught by Delorme by utilizing an RFID and reader in the detector as taught by Theriault in order to determine where the puck is located.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights