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 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, 3, 5-7, 9-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 00/18479 to Hay.
Re claim 1, Hay discloses A sports training system, (Abstract, “A sports training aid comprising a series of targets … provided for indicating a target to be hit”)
comprising: a controller; p. 10 line 25, the invention of Hay is enabled by software that controls the scoring monitor 4.
a target board including at least one board zone configured to be impacted by a sports implement;
p. 2 lines 25-30, a preferred embodiment of the invention comprises a sports training aid comprising targets, a sensing means for detecting the impact of a ball or other object on targets, and output means for providing performance feedback to a player.
p. 2 lines 32-34, the targets are mounted on a supporting structure, typically a board.
p. 3 continues in describing physical attributes of the board, including that it may be flexible and shock absorbing, comprises a supporting means, may be approximately 1 meter square in area, may be made of plastic, the targets may be the size of a football, targets may be lit, etc.
See also p. 8 beginning in line 25 describing Fig. 1, a sports training aid 1 comprising a board 2 with targets 3.
and at least one vibration sensor
p. 2 lines 27-28, sensing means for detecting the impact of a ball or other object on the targets
p. 6 lines 17-19, each section of a target board comprises an integral sensor.
p. 8, 25-28, targets 3 of board 2 are provided with sensors 5
p. 9 lines 27-28, when a target 3 is hit, sensor 5 registers the hit.
Impact sensing sensors attached to or integrated into target areas meet the limitation of being vibration sensors.
and at least one light source,
p. 3 lines 21-23, each target is provided with a means for illumination
p. 8 line 28, targets 3 are provided with illuminating means 6
p. 9 lines 24-25, targets 3 are illuminated based on random selection by scoring monitor 4
each vibration sensor among the at least one vibration sensor and each light source among the at least one light source being operatively coupled to the controller and respectively operably coupled to a corresponding board zone among the at least one board zone,
p. 9 lines 24-26, lights are illuminated at random under control of the scoring monitor 4
p. 9 lines 27-29, a sensor 5 that has been struck by a player-propelled ball registers the hit with scoring monitor 4, which then records a target strike and a timestamp.
wherein each vibration sensor is configured to generate a vibration signal in response to vibration of the corresponding board zone,
p. 6 lines 18, p. 8 lines 27-28, targets each comprise sensors 5 and illuminating means 6.
p. 9 lines 27-28, sensors 5 register when they are struck by a player-propelled ball and sends this data to a scoring monitor;
and wherein the controller is configured to select a board zone among the at least one board zone as a target to be hit by the sports implement, place the light source operatively coupled to the selected board zone in an illumination state indicating that the selected board zone is the target,
p. 5 lines 4-6, the invention is programmed to require an illuminated target to be hit, which further effects the function of a computer program.
p. 9 lines 24-25, scoring monitor 4 selects at random one of the targets 3 which is then illuminated by illuminating means 6
and determine whether the sports implement has hit the selected board zone based on whether the controller receives the vibration signal generated by the vibration sensor operatively coupled to the selected board zone.
p. 9, line 21 begins a description of a preferred embodiment of the invention. Scoring monitor 4 selects targets 3 at random, illuminates a chosen target, the player propels a ball at the indicated target, and if the target has been accurately hit, sensor 5 registers the hit, scoring monitor 4 records the strike and time taken, and the process is repeated for different targets.
p. 10 lines 1-5, targets 3 may be illuminated for pre-determined time periods, after which a target is recorded as a miss.
Re claim 3, p. 6 lines 1-2 describes that a preferred use of the instant invention is to strike illuminated targets with a football.
Re claims 5-6, see p. 6 lines 18, p. 8 lines 27-28, targets each comprise sensors 5 and illuminating means 6., and p. 9 lines 27-28, sensors 5 register when they are struck by a player-propelled ball and sends this data to a scoring monitor.
Re claim 7, because this claim does not define any particular structural configuration required to achieve the desired “vibrationally isolated” mounting, any feature in the prior art that achieves this function meets the claim. Discrete sensors in Hay meet this limitation, see p. 6 lines 18, p. 8 lines 27-28, describing that targets each comprise sensors 5, and p. 9 lines 27-28, describing that sensors 5 each register when they are struck by a player-propelled ball and sends this data to a scoring monitor.
Re claim 9, p. 15 lines 32-34 describes that the board could be programmed to include crowd noise sound effects, and 16:18 indicates audio messages regarding targets could be provided to inform the user.
Re claims 10-11, refer to Fig. 2, wherein a portion of the target 9 extends perpendicular to the ground (that comprising the target zones) and a portion extends horizontal to the ground (the support base).
Re claim 12, p. 18 line 2 indicates that the ball could be returned to the player after hitting a board during a sequence of ball propelling events.
Re claims 13, 16-18, p. 3 lines 29-33 describe that various score data is output, including an efficiency rating, accuracy rating and a fitness rating.
Re claim 14, refer to the rejection of claims 1 and 13, wherein 13 cites to how Hays scores board zone strikes.
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.
Claims 2, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of EP 0083316 to Marchesini.
Re claims 2, 15, Although Hay teaches substantially the same inventive concept, Hay is silent as to whether his vibration sensors must register greater than a threshold value in order for the computerized device to determine that a target zone has been struck.
Marchesini is an analogous prior art sensor-equipped sports target device that teaches, see p. 5 L 23-27, that it was known in the art to require target sensor strike values to exceed a threshold in order to positively judge a strike has occurred – “The output … goes into a comparator C where the logic state of the output signal is changed only once a given threshold value, predetermined … has been exceeded” and subsequently the signal is sent to a logic circuit for scoring and time determinations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that Hay’s ball strike determination based on signals originating at target sensors could have required a generated signal to exceed a threshold value as taught by Marchesini without causing any unexpected results. The advantage would be to avoid false strike determination from ambient vibration.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of US 2023/0138619 A1 to Eustace et al.
Re claim 4, Although Hay teaches substantially the same inventive concept, Hay’s preferred embodiment extinguishes a lit target to indicate it has been struck.
Eustace is an analogous electronic, illuminated sports target system that teaches it was known to cause an illuminated target to change color indicating it has been struck, see [0018].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the target of Hay could have manipulated the light state, such as by changing color, when a ball has been detected to strike it rather than extinguishing the light. The motivation would be to provide a clearer confirmation of a ball strike to a player.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay.
Re claim 8, although Hay does not disclose where his controller is located at a master sensing panel among the sensing panels, a rearrangement of parts of an apparatus without a claimed advantage for the particular rearrangement is a matter of obviousness. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In the pending claim, there is no evidence that shifting the position of the controller would have modified the operation of the invention and similarly is seen as an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of US 2022/0054927 A1 to Theriault.
Re claims 19-20, Although Hay teaches substantially the same inventive concept, Hay is silent as to whether multiple targets can be deployed and connected to a network that can store player profiles.
Theriault is an analogous prior art electronic target device that teaches it was known to deploy a plurality of target devices connected through a network, such as a cloud network, to enable multiple remote players to use the system wherein their profile information is saved and accessible on the cloud, see [0048]-[0049], and [0050]-[0051] which describes the reason for multiple target devices connected to a network is to “connect to other players, and the ability to train together physically and remotely” and “to share their training stats … and training progress with other players.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that multiple users could operate multiple target devices such as those taught by Hay connected over a network that stored player profile data as taught by Theriault without causing any unexpected results. Networking consumer computing devices for cooperative or competitive and remote use has been ubiquitous for decades since the filing of Hays application. It is additionally noted that duplication of parts absent any unexpected results is indicia of obviousness. MPEP 2144.04, which describes legal precedent sources for obviousness rationale, cites In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), in which the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J HYLINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-530.
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.
/STEVEN J HYLINSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights