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 .
This office action is in response to communication fled on 6/30/2026. Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to claims 2-11 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 USC 101 directed to an abstract idea has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 3-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Remarks
Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts that McNally does not disclose or suggest that multiple images corresponding to a single label are generated by at least two cameras positioned in predetermined directions (Remarks page 6).
Although the examiner agrees that McNally does not disclose at least two cameras positioned in predetermined directions, it is noted that Hollinger was relied upon to teach this limitation (see page 5 of the previous Office Action). McNally does teach generating multiple images (para. [0077], two datasets D1 and D2 of images of a dartboard taken by a smartphone camera and a single-lens reflex camera taken from various angles, respectively). An example can be seen in fig. 1 of the images obtained from a smartphone camera. McNally teaches that each dartboard image is subject to keypoint detection (para. [0067]) in which each keypoint is interpreted to correspond to a single label (para. [0078]). Therefore McNally teaches multiple images corresponding to a single label are generated.
Hollinger teaches at least two cameras positioned in predetermined directions (102A and 102B in fig. 1, para. [0045]) which generate images of a dartboard (para. [0037]). The dartboard images comprise at least one label such as a proper point value (para. [0038]). Hollinger was not relied upon to teach creating training images, assigning labels to multi-view image sets, or using multi-camera captures to build training data for a network model.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the use of multiple cameras as taught by Hollinger provides the benefit of being able to accurately locate and score traditional steel-tipped darts used with a standard board (para. [0009] of Hollinger).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks page 7), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1 and 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNally et al (US20220341716) in view of Hollinger et al (US20170307341).
Regarding claim 1, McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored therein that when executed by one or more processors of a computing device (para. [0093]), causes the processor to execute a method of generating a training dataset for dart pin location identification (para. [0077]) for training a dart pin location identification network model to more accurately identify the hit location of at least one dart pin in various environments (para. [0080]-[0081]), the method comprising:
obtaining a dart target photographing training image in which at least one dart pin hits in one segment of a dart target (fig. 3; para. [0062]), wherein a plurality of segments included in the dart target each includes a predetermined number of bits (dartboards are known to be manufactured with holes, see para. [0006]); and
assigning a label corresponding to the obtained dart target photographing training image (para. [0067]-[0068], bounding boxes; para. [0071], the score of any dart), wherein the dart target photographing training image includes at least two images (para. [0077]) corresponding to one label (para. [0067], it would be obvious for the multiple images to correspond to one label when a dart detected and keypoint detection is utilized), each positioned in a predetermined direction (para. [0077]).
McNally fails to teach wherein the at least two images corresponding to the one label are generated by at least two cameras. However Hollinger teaches generating, with multiple cameras (102A and 102B in fig. 2) positioned in a predetermined direction (212A and 212B in fig. 2; para. [0045], a pair of cameras are positioned about 90 degrees apart with respect to the center of the bullseye), at least two images of a dart board (para. [0037], capture images of darts landing on board 108) corresponding to one label (para. [0036], the proper point value based on which region 204 the dart 110 is calculated to be in. This is interpreted to be a label).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of McNally and Hollinger as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Hollinger into the method of McNally. The motivation to combine Hollinger and McNally would be to accurately locate and score traditional steel-tipped darts used with a standard board with as few as two cameras (para. [0009] of Hollinger).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the obtaining of the dart target photographing training image in which at least one dart pin hits in the one segment of the dart target includes:
obtaining a first dart target photographing training image of a first dart pin hitting on a first bit included in a first segment of the dart target (fig. 6D of McNally); and
obtaining a second dart target photographing training image of the first dart pin hitting on a second bit included in the first segment of the dart target (fig. 6E of McNally).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the obtaining of the dart target photographing training image in which at least one dart pin hits in the one segment of the dart target further includes:
obtaining a third dart target photographing training image of the first dart pin hitting on a third bit included in a second segment of the dart target (fig. 6A of McNally).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the obtaining of the dart target photographing training image in which at least one dart pin hits in the one segment of the dart target further includes:
obtaining a fourth dart target photographing training image in which the first dart pin hits on the first bit included in the first segment of the dart target and a second dart pin hits on the second bit included in the first segment of the dart target (fig. 6F of McNally).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium further comprising: obtaining a fifth dart target photographing training image in which the first dart pin hits on the first bit included in the first segment of the dart target and a second dart pin hits on a fourth bit included in the first segment of the dart target (fig. 6G of McNally).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein the obtaining of the dart target photographing training image in which at least one dart pin hits in the one segment of the dart target further includes:
obtaining a sixth dart target photographing training image in which the first dart pin hits on the first bit included in the first segment of the dart target and a second dart pin hits on a third bit included in a second segment of the dart target (fig. 6A of McNally).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium further comprising:
obtaining a seventh dart target photographing training image in which the first dart pin hits on the first bit included in the first segment of the dart target and the second dart pin hits on a fifth bit included in a second segment of the dart target (fig. 6B of McNally).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the obtaining of the first dart target photographing training image of the first dart pin hitting on the first bit included in the first segment of the dart target includes:
obtaining the first dart target photographing training image under a first photographing environment condition (para. [0077] of McNally, Several windows were in the vicinity of the dartboards, and images were collected during the day and at night, which provided a variety of natural and artificial lighting conditions); and
obtaining the first dart target photographing training image under a second photographing environment condition (para. [0077] of McNally, Several windows were in the vicinity of the dartboards, and images were collected during the day and at night, which provided a variety of natural and artificial lighting conditions).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the label is determined based on a location of a segment hit by a dart pin (para. [0067] of McNally, keypoint bounding box; para. [0071] of McNally, the score of any dart. The represented mapping of dartboard image keypoints to dart scores; para. [0078] of McNally, Up to seven keypoints were labeled in each image).
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of McNally teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium wherein the label is determined based on the location of the segment and a location of a bit in the one segment (para. [0071] of McNally).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights