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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the steps of: positioning a plurality of visual aids about a field of play; mapping, using a range visualization system, the visual aids as a plurality of virtual markers within a gameplay environment; mapping, using the range visualization system, a virtual target within the gameplay environment, wherein a position of the virtual target is represented on the shared field of play by corresponding visual aids; and showing, using a display, the virtual target and the virtual markers in the gameplay environment” in claim 16; “the step of altering an appearance for each of the virtual markers when the corresponding visual aids do not represent the position of the virtual target” in claim 17; “the step of removing all or some of the plurality of virtual markers from the gameplay environment based on an input on the display” in claim 18; “the step of generating, using a computer, a recommended flight path of a ball over the field of play to reach a physical position within the range that corresponds to the virtual target within the gameplay environment” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
The written description fails to disclose corresponding structure in the specification, please see the 112, 2nd rejection below.
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 16 – 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.
Claim limitations “the steps of: positioning a plurality of visual aids about a field of play; mapping, using a range visualization system, the visual aids as a plurality of virtual markers within a gameplay environment; mapping, using the range visualization system, a virtual target within the gameplay environment, wherein a position of the virtual target is represented on the shared field of play by corresponding visual aids; and showing, using a display, the virtual target and the virtual markers in the gameplay environment” in claim 16; “the step of altering an appearance for each of the virtual markers when the corresponding visual aids do not represent the position of the virtual target” in claim 17; “the step of removing all or some of the plurality of virtual markers from the gameplay environment based on an input on the display” in claim 18; “the step of generating, using a computer, a recommended flight path of a ball over the field of play to reach a physical position within the range that corresponds to the virtual target within the gameplay environment” in claim 19 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterson et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0384341 A1).
As per claim 1, Peterson et al. discloses a system for integrating virtual targets on a sports field (see Fig. 10) the system comprising: a plurality of bay stations (see Fig. 1:12 and 18 and [0029]) each having a display positioned (a scoring kiosk, see Fig. 1:20) therein, the display configured to show a gameplay environment (see Fig. 10); a range extending from the bay stations (open field game arrangement, see Fig. 1), the range comprising: a shared field of play of each of the bay stations (see Fig. 1:10), and a plurality of visual aids providing reference points for the shared field of play (see Fig. 1 and [0030]); and a range visualization system configured to provide a virtual target in the gameplay environment, wherein a characteristic of the virtual target is represented on the shared field of play by at least one of the visual aids (see [0030] – [0031]).
As per claim 2, Peterson et al. discloses the characteristic of the virtual target is a size, a height, a position, or a combination thereof of the virtual target (see Fig. 1 and 10).
As per claim 3, Peterson et al. discloses each of the visual aids is positioned above the shared field of play at one of a plurality of height intervals (see Fig. 1 and [0036]).
As per claim 4, Peterson et al. discloses each of the visual aids is positioned on a support pole or a segment of netting (a foldable material does not have sufficient structure of its own to hold its shape, so it uses some way to keep its shape, such as by being inflated or by being supported by a more rigid framework of some type, such as rods made of fiberglass, metal, or other desired material or inflated tubes, see [0031]).
As per claim 5, Peterson et al. discloses the plurality of visual aids is represented in the gameplay environment by a plurality of virtual markers (see Fig. 1 and 10).
As per claim 6, Peterson et al. discloses the visual markers comprise a line intersecting the virtual target (see Fig. 10 and [0049]).
As per claim 7, Peterson et al. discloses each of the virtual markers has a color, a pattern, a width, or a combination thereof matching that of the corresponding visual aid (different colors, patterns and shapes, see Fig. 1, 11 – 16 and [0053] – [0054]).
As per claim 8, Peterson et al. discloses the gameplay environment mirrors the shared field of play (see Fig. 1 and 10).
As per claim 9, Peterson et al. discloses the gameplay environment is completely virtualized (see Fig. 10 and [0049]).
As per claim 10, Peterson et al. discloses the range further comprises a physical target located on the shared field of play (see Fig. 1:14A- 14E).
As per claim 11, Peterson et al. discloses the physical target provides a reference point within the shared field of play for the virtual target (see Fig. 1 and 10).
As per claim 12, Peterson et al. discloses all or a portion of the physical target is mobile (see [0030]).
As per claim 13, Peterson et al. discloses the range visualization system is further configured to visualize the physical target as the virtual target (see Fig. 10).
As per claim 14, Peterson et al. discloses the range visualization system is further configured to visualize a second virtual target (see Fig. 10).
As per claim 15, Peterson et al. discloses the range visualization system is further configured to visualize a third virtual target (see Fig. 10).
As per claims 16 – 20, the instant claims are a method in which corresponds to the system of claims 1 – 15. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~8:00 - ~ 5:00.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/ANKIT B DOSHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3715