DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made Final in response to applicant’s Amendments / Request for Reconsideration filed 5/26/26. Claims 6, 8-10 and 15 are cancelled; claims 1, 7 and 16 are amended; claims 21-25 are added. Claims 1-5, 7, 11-14 and 16-25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108) and further in view of Civettini et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0176545).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 21, Wei et al. teaches a method of facilitating scoring for an in-person, live-action game involving a plurality of players, the method comprising: differentiating (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]), by one or more of a gaming outfit worn by a first player of the plurality of players, a projectile launcher of a second player of the plurality of players, and a central server, between a legitimate shot hit and a non-projectile impact (paragraphs [0235] – [0239]), by determining a shot hit against the first player based at least in part on detection of an impact of a projectile fired by a projectile launcher (i.e. “gun” – paragraph [0238]) with the gaming outfit (paragraphs [0104], [0109]-[0116], [0235] – [0239]; [0332]).
Wei et al. teaches that after determining the shot hit (via sensing shell), a signal is sent to a game controller to provide game scoring (paragraph [0142], but fails to expressly teach wherein the gaming outfit comprises a feedback sensor to provide feedback regarding the shot. However, analogous art reference Waldman et al. teaches that it is known to provide feedback regarding a determined shot hit via a feedback sensor of a gaming outfit 200 (“vest receiver”), wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more lights 202, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the one or more lights to produce a prescribed light (paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0041]), wherein the color confirms the shot hit Id. and a second pattern of a flashing light pattern or the non-flashing light pattern indicates the shot hit has resulted in elimination of the first player from a live in-person, live-action game (paragraph [0040]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the feedback sensor of Waldman et al. into the game of Wei et al. The rationale to combine is to provide sensory feedback. This will help facilitate gameplay and provide information to the players/spectators. Waldman et al. does not expressly disclose lights 202 to be LED light, but teaches that it is known to use LED lights for game play light indicators (paragraph [0038]0. A person ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use LED lights for the lights 202 as they are known to require little power with minimal heat produced. Lastly, Waldman et al. uses a prescribed color to provide the feedback (paragraph [0040]) as opposed to using a “flashing pattern” as claimed. However, the specific light orientation (i.e. color vs pulsing/blinking/flashing vs changing intensity) is considered an obvious aesthetic design choice. Each approach provides a visual indication to the players/spectators. Should applicant traverse this position, examiner cites to paragraph [0041] of Waldman for its teaching of the lights 202 making a flashing (i.e. “pulsates or beats”) pattern. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine this known lighting feature with the color lighting taught in paragraph [40]. The rationale to combine is to provide a known light pattern to for indicating a hitting impact.
Wei et al. does not expressly teach wherein the determining is also based on information indicative of the projectile being fired by the projectile launcher. However, Civettini teaches that it is known to determine a shot hit of a projectile against a target based on information indicative of the projectile being fired by a projectile launcher, wherein the information indicative of the simulated projectile being fired by the projectile launcher of comprises information identifying the projectile launcher as targeting the target (paragraph [0049]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add this determining feature to game of Wei et al. Examiner notes the outfit worn by the first player is a de facto target for the second player. Thus, while Civettini teaches wherein its projectile hit is measured with respect to a platform target, locational sensors used to determine if the aiming is correct easily and obviously be made in respect to the first player outfit target. The rationale to combine is to further differentiate between a legitimate shot and a miss of a projectile. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as locational sensors can easily be incorporated into the launcher and outfit.
With respect to claim 4, Waldman, cited above for the feedback sensor, further teaches wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more lights 202, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the one or more lights to produce a flashing light pattern or a non-flashing light pattern (paragraph [0040]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 5, Waldman, cited above for the feedback sensor, further teaches wherein the feedback sensor can comprise a light and a haptic feedback sensor, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the haptic feedback sensor to produce vibration (“tactile” … “vibrate”)(paragraph [0036]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a haptic sensor that vibrates for the feedback sensor as this will expectantly provide visceral feedback feel to the user when they are hit. Examiner notes the haptic feedback can be used in conjunction with the light feedback sensor as set forth in Waldman at paragraph [0036]).
With respect to claim 7, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes a communication circuit operable to transmit information to a central server via a communication network (paragraphs [0135]- [0136], [0140], [0266] – “central game server”) and wherein the method further comprises causing real-time information regarding the in-person, live-action game maintained by the central server to be updated by notifying, by the gaming outfit via the communication circuit, the central server of the shot hit (“life points” - paragraph [0239]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
With respect to claim 8, Wei et al. teaches wherein said determining further comprising differentiating between a legitimate shot hit and a false positive hit from a non-projectile impact (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]); .
With respect to claim 11, Wei et al. teaches wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 12, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes one or more of a shirt, a pair of pants, a one-piece jumpsuit, and a helmet (paragraph [0237]), wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with one or more of the shirt, the pair of pants, the one-piece jumpsuit, or the helmet (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 14, Wei et al. teaches wherein the in-person, live-action game is played within an enclosed indoor arena (paragraph [0334]-[0338]) including triangulation sensors and wherein the method further comprises determining a location of one or more of the first player and the second player based on information received from the triangulation sensors (paragraphs [0347]; again, examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to human participants wearing the sensing unit).
With respect to claim 23, Wei et al. teaches attributing the second player with the shot hit and updating a score for the second player (paragraphs [0291], [0307]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108) and further in view of Civettini et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0176545) and further in view of Oetiker (US Pat. No. 3,677,546).
With respect to claim 13, Wei does not expressly disclose wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed based on electrical conductivity of the projectile or a portion of the gaming suit. However, analogous art reference Oetiker teaches this feature to be known in the art of projectile shooting target games – columns 2-3 teaching an electrical circuit being formed, which is based on electrical conductivity, to detect impact from a projectile. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the sensing apparatus of the gaming outfit with the impact determination system of Oetiker. The rationale to combine is to determine a hit from a projectile using a known technique.
5. Claims 16-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Civettini et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0176545).
With respect to claims 16 and 24, Wei et al. teaches a method of facilitating scoring for an in-person, live-action game involving a plurality of players, the method comprising: differentiating (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]), by one or more of a gaming outfit worn by a first player of the plurality of players, a projectile launcher of a second player of the plurality of players, and a central server, between a legitimate shot hit and a non-projectile impact (paragraphs [0235] – [0239]), by determining a shot hit against the first player based at least in part on detection of an impact of a projectile with the gaming outfit (paragraphs [0104], [0109]-[0116], [0235] – [0239]; [0332]); and updating a score the for the second player based on the shot hit (paragraphs [0291], [0307]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
Wei et al. does not expressly teach wherein the determining is also based on information indicative of the projectile being fired by the projectile launcher. However, Civettini teaches that it is known to determine a shot hit of a projectile against a target based on information indicative of the projectile being fired by a projectile launcher, wherein the information indicative of the simulated projectile being fired by the projectile launcher of comprises information identifying the projectile launcher as targeting the target (paragraph [0049]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add this determining feature to game of Wei et al. Examiner notes the outfit worn by the first player is a de facto target for the second player. Thus, while Civettini teaches wherein its projectile hit is measured with respect to a platform target, locational sensors used to determine if the aiming is correct easily and obviously be made in respect to the first player outfit target. The rationale to combine is to further differentiate between a legitimate shot and a miss of a projectile. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as locational sensors can easily be incorporated into the launcher and outfit.
With respect to claims 17-18, Wei et al. does not expressly teach after determining the shot hit, providing feedback regarding the shot hit via a feedback sensor of the gaming outfit, wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more of a light emitting diode (LED), a light, or a vibrator, and wherein said providing feedback comprises activating the LED, the light, or the vibrator. However, analogous art reference Waldman teaches these features to be known in the art (paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0041]). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 19, Wei et al. teaches wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114] – “The sensors may be … piezoelectric”; See also paragraphs [0104]-[0105] teaching a “flat surface” of the sensing apparatus, which reads on impact pad).
6. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Civettini et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0176545), or in the alternative, in further view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108).
With respect to claim 20, Wei et al. teaches providing a virtual status for a player by the sensors (paragraph [0142]; See also paragraph [0377] teaching wherein the object can be the human player), wherein the virtual status includes “life points”, “damage assessment”, including “alive” or “dead” assessments (paragraph [0142]). Wei et al. further teaches displaying this game information on a display device (paragraphs [0271], [0279]). Wei et al. does not expressly teach that the first and second game players are provided this information. However, Wei et al. also teaches providing a “communal display device” that “may be displayed to individuals at the facility” (paragraphs [0368]-[0373]). A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a communal display showing the game information for the game between the first and second players. This would expectantly inform the players of the situation of the game. In the alternative, secondary reference Waldman teaches providing a light blinking system that intrinsically informs the player of their game status (i.e. hit indicator – paragraph [0040]). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 22, Wei et al. teaches a method of facilitating scoring for an in-person, live-action game involving a plurality of players, the method comprising: differentiating (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]), by one or more of a gaming outfit worn by a first player of the plurality of players, a projectile launcher of a second player of the plurality of players, and a central server, between a legitimate shot hit and a non-projectile impact (paragraphs [0235] – [0239]), by determining a shot hit against the first player based at least in part on detection of an impact of a projectile fired by a projectile launcher (i.e. “gun” – paragraph [0238]) with the gaming outfit (paragraphs [0104], [0109]-[0116], [0235] – [0239]; [0332]).
Wei et al. teaches that after determining the shot hit (via sensing shell), a signal is sent to a game controller to provide game scoring (paragraph [0142], but fails to expressly teach wherein the gaming outfit comprises a feedback sensor to provide feedback regarding the shot. However, analogous art reference Waldman et al. teaches that it is known to provide feedback regarding a determined shot hit via a feedback sensor of a gaming outfit 200 (“vest receiver”), wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more lights 202, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the one or more lights to produce a prescribed light (paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0041]), wherein the color confirms the shot hit Id. and a second pattern of a flashing light pattern or the non-flashing light pattern indicates the shot hit has resulted in elimination of the first player from a live in-person, live-action game (paragraph [0040]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the feedback sensor of Waldman et al. into the game of Wei et al. The rationale to combine is to provide sensory feedback. This will help facilitate gameplay and provide information to the players/spectators. Waldman et al. does not expressly disclose lights 202 to be LED light, but teaches that it is known to use LED lights for game play light indicators (paragraph [0038]0. A person ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use LED lights for the lights 202 as they are known to require little power with minimal heat produced. Lastly, Waldman et al. uses a prescribed color to provide the feedback (paragraph [0040]) as opposed to using a “flashing pattern” as claimed. However, the specific light orientation (i.e. color vs pulsing/blinking/flashing vs changing intensity) is considered an obvious aesthetic design choice. Each approach provides a visual indication to the players/spectators. Should applicant traverse this position, examiner cites to paragraph [0041] of Waldman for its teaching of the lights 202 making a flashing (i.e. “pulsates or beats”) pattern. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine this known lighting feature with the color lighting taught in paragraph [40]. The rationale to combine is to provide a known light pattern to for indicating a hitting impact.
Wei et al. does not expressly teach wherein the determining is also based on information indicative of the projectile being fired by the projectile launcher. However, Waldman teaches that it is known to determine a shot hit of a projectile (virtual) against a target based on information (i.e. IR signal) indicative of the projectile being fired by a projectile launcher (paragraphs [0036]-[0037], [0042]), wherein the information indicative of the projectile being fired is emitted by the projectile launcher (i.e the IR is sent from a player “blaster” and received by opposing player vest). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add this determining feature to game of Wei et al. As Waldman notes, this helps decipher between friendly fire and opponent shots. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success. The IR signals can work in conjunction with the physical projectiles.
With respect to claim 4, Waldman, cited above for the feedback sensor, further teaches wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more lights 202, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the one or more lights to produce a flashing light pattern or a non-flashing light pattern (paragraph [0040]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 5, Waldman, cited above for the feedback sensor, further teaches wherein the feedback sensor can comprise a light and a haptic feedback sensor, and wherein said providing feedback comprises causing the haptic feedback sensor to produce vibration (“tactile” … “vibrate”)(paragraph [0036]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a haptic sensor that vibrates for the feedback sensor as this will expectantly provide visceral feedback feel to the user when they are hit. Examiner notes the haptic feedback can be used in conjunction with the light feedback sensor as set forth in Waldman at paragraph [0036]).
With respect to claim 7, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes a communication circuit operable to transmit information to a central server via a communication network (paragraphs [0135]- [0136], [0140], [0266] – “central game server”) and wherein the method further comprises causing real-time information regarding the in-person, live-action game maintained by the central server to be updated by notifying, by the gaming outfit via the communication circuit, the central server of the shot hit (“life points” - paragraph [0239]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
With respect to claim 8, Wei et al. teaches wherein said determining further comprising differentiating between a legitimate shot hit and a false positive hit from a non-projectile impact (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]); .
With respect to claim 11, Wei et al. teaches wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 12, Wei et al. teaches wherein the gaming outfit includes one or more of a shirt, a pair of pants, a one-piece jumpsuit, and a helmet (paragraph [0237]), wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with one or more of the shirt, the pair of pants, the one-piece jumpsuit, or the helmet (paragraph [0114]).
With respect to claim 14, Wei et al. teaches wherein the in-person, live-action game is played within an enclosed indoor arena (paragraph [0334]-[0338]) including triangulation sensors and wherein the method further comprises determining a location of one or more of the first player and the second player based on information received from the triangulation sensors (paragraphs [0347]; again, examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to human participants wearing the sensing unit).
With respect to claim 23, Wei et al. teaches attributing the second player with the shot hit and updating a score for the second player (paragraphs [0291], [0307]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108) and further in view of Oetiker (US Pat. No. 3,677,546).
With respect to claim 13, Wei does not expressly disclose wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed based on electrical conductivity of the projectile or a portion of the gaming suit. However, analogous art reference Oetiker teaches this feature to be known in the art of projectile shooting target games – columns 2-3 teaching an electrical circuit being formed, which is based on electrical conductivity, to detect impact from a projectile. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the sensing apparatus of the gaming outfit with the impact determination system of Oetiker. The rationale to combine is to determine a hit from a projectile using a known technique.
9. Claims 16-20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0321094) in view of Waldman et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0229108).
With respect to claims 16 and 25, Wei et al. teaches a method of facilitating scoring for an in-person, live-action game involving a plurality of players, the method comprising: differentiating (via predetermined thresholds – paragraphs [0143]-[0153]), by one or more of a gaming outfit worn by a first player of the plurality of players, a projectile launcher of a second player of the plurality of players, and a central server, between a legitimate shot hit and a non-projectile impact (paragraphs [0235] – [0239]), by determining a shot hit against the first player based at least in part on detection of an impact of a projectile with the gaming outfit (paragraphs [0104], [0109]-[0116], [0235] – [0239]; [0332]); and updating a score the for the second player based on the shot hit (paragraphs [0291], [0307]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit).
Wei et al. does not expressly teach wherein the determining is also based on information indicative of the projectile being fired by the projectile launcher. However, Waldman teaches that it is known to determine a shot hit of a projectile (virtual) against a target based on information (i.e. IR signal) indicative of the projectile being fired by a projectile launcher (paragraphs [0036]-[0037], [0042]), wherein the information indicative of the projectile being fired is emitted by the projectile launcher (i.e the IR is sent from a player “blaster” and received by opposing player vest). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add this determining feature to game of Wei et al. As Waldman notes, this helps decipher between friendly fire and opponent shots. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success. The IR signals can work in conjunction with the physical projectiles.
With respect to claims 17-18, Wei et al. does not expressly teach after determining the shot hit, providing feedback regarding the shot hit via a feedback sensor of the gaming outfit, wherein the feedback sensor comprises one or more of a light emitting diode (LED), a light, or a vibrator, and wherein said providing feedback comprises activating the LED, the light, or the vibrator. However, analogous art reference Waldman teaches these features to be known in the art (paragraphs [0036], [0040], [0041]). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
With respect to claim 19, Wei et al. teaches wherein the detection of the impact of the projectile is performed by a piezo electric based impact pad of one or more piezo electric based impact pads associated with the gaming outfit that are capable of detecting physical impact (paragraph [0114] – “The sensors may be … piezoelectric”; See also paragraphs [0104]-[0105] teaching a “flat surface” of the sensing apparatus, which reads on impact pad).
With respect to claim 20, Wei et al. teaches providing a virtual status for a player by the sensors (paragraph [0142]; See also paragraph [0377] teaching wherein the object can be the human player), wherein the virtual status includes “life points”, “damage assessment”, including “alive” or “dead” assessments (paragraph [0142]). Wei et al. further teaches displaying this game information on a display device (paragraphs [0271], [0279]). Wei et al. does not expressly teach that the first and second game players are provided this information. However, Wei et al. also teaches providing a “communal display device” that “may be displayed to individuals at the facility” (paragraphs [0368]-[0373]). A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a communal display showing the game information for the game between the first and second players. This would expectantly inform the players of the situation of the game. In the alternative, secondary reference Waldman teaches providing a light blinking system that intrinsically informs the player of their game status (i.e. hit indicator – paragraph [0040]). The rationale to combine is the same as stated above.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are generally moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, sans the issues set forth below.
Applicant argues that Wei fails to teach the claim element of updating a score for the second player that made the shot hit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wei et al. teaches attributing the second player with the shot hit and updating a score for the second player (paragraphs [0291], [0307]; examiner notes paragraphs [0235], [0349], [0377] teaching that the systems, devices and methods pertaining to a vehicle, or robot, are also applicable to humans wearing the sensing unit.
Lastly, applicant argues that there is not motivation to combine Wei and Rosenberg because the latter, allegedly, contradicts Wei’s teaching related to bit detection and distinguishing collisions from other projectile hits. According to applicant, since Rosenberg teaches detecting targets hits based on use of a “launch timestamp” using an RFID tag, it is apparently incompatible with the MEMS system used in Wei. Examiner notes Rosenberg is no longer being cited for its use of timestamps. Moreover, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, the components used to carry out the various detection systems of Wei and Rosenberg are rudimentary technologies in the art. A person ordinary skill in the art would recognize an RFID system can easily be incorporated with a MEMS system.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights