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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the application as filed on April 12, 2024. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawings will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2). However, the color photographs/drawings shown in Figs. 3B, C, E, 7A, B, lack clarity and definition, such that elements of the drawings cannot be discerned. Black and white line drawings are required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 220, 222, 224, in Fig. 3C and characters 610, 630, 632, 634, 636 in Fig. 7A all appear to designate the same element and/or it is unclear what elements these characters differentiate.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 § CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims ## are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “A computer-implemented method comprising, by one or more processors of a user device:” The language is confusing as to what the one or more processors relation to the method are. The following or similar language is suggested for clarity -- A computer-implemented method including operations executed by one or more processors of a user device, the operations1 of the method comprising: --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 17, the claim recites the limitations “The method” and “the initial game information” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that claim 17 depends from claim 14; however, it is believed this claim should depend from 16 (e.g., which includes the antecedents for these terms). For purposes of examination, this claim with be interpreted as depending from claim 16.
In re claim 20, the claim recites “the additional update information” and “the additional updated display information” at lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is noted that claim 20 depends from claim 17; however, it is believed this claim should depend from 19 (e.g., which includes the antecedents for these terms). For purposes of examination, this claim with be interpreted as depending from claim 19.
Claims 20 depends from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-22 are directed to a system and a method. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “scorekeeping systems for games and sports.” (par. 1) and “the user interface can help guide and teach players through the selected game. The application may help teach rules, scoring, playing configuration, and the like.” “Through a series of prompts, the user interface and scoreboard can instruct players how they should be positioned on the court and the intricacies of scoring a complicated and rule heavy game.”
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A system for scorekeeping comprising:
a display device comprising a scoreboard configured to display a game status based on display configuration information; and
an application executable by a user device having a user interface, the user device comprising one or more processors in communication with the user interface and the display device, the one or more processors configured with processor-executable instructions included in the application to at least:
send, to the display device, initial display configuration information that causes the display device to display an initial game status;
receive, from the user interface of the user device, update information associated with the game status;
determine updated display configuration information based on the received update information; and
send, to the display device, the updated display configuration information to cause the display device to display an updated game status.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in the method of claim 15. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the information used by the abstract idea. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. The claims recite a method of training athletes how to score a game. This is a method of organizing human activity because it is drawn to a method of managing personal behavior during the playing of a game. Furthermore, the method can be performed in the mind of a human and/or with the aid of pencil and paper.
The use of scoring and score keeping is basic to process of playing games and competing. The system and method in the instant application simply seek to automate this well-known activity and/or “teach” a user how to score a particular game or competition using generic computers recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including teaching, for example, instructing/facilitating score keeping of a game by a competitor.
In addition, the claims also recite a mental process. But for the recitation of the recitation of a display, an interface, and a processor executing an application/instructions, the claims only recite computing elements at a high level of generality, and nothing in the claimed system or method precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, sending initial display configuration information to display an initial game status (e.g., drawing a scoreboard/card with pencil and paper); receive update information associated with the game status (e.g., observing a player winning a server); determine updated display information based on the received update information (e.g., judge how the winning server should be scored); and send the updated display configuration information to display of an updated game status (e.g., write down the determined score using pencil and paper). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind and/or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2A, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. The elements of a display, an interface, and a processor executing an application/instructions only recite computing elements at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic elements performing generic functions of storing, receiving, sending, processing, and displaying information), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Further, even if the claims nominally required these steps to be performed by a computer system, this computer implementation of a mental process would be insufficient to take the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract ideas. See Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it with a computer’” is insufficient to confer eligibility.). Applicant’s specification does not provide additional details about the generic computing elements that would transform the computer system into a specific computing device for converting input data from one form to another. Nor does it disclose any processing circuitry including specific instructions for performing the recited functions, such that the derived content transforms the received data into a new state or thing. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Rather, the claims merely automate a previously manual process of scoring a game using generic computer technology thereby transforming input data into an equivalent output data indicating an updated score display. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Ped. Cir. 2017) (Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers docs not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”}; see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function... does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Here a computer is used for its inherent processing ability of performing calculations on or processing of data in an efficient and timely manner to produce a directed result (e.g., an updated display/score).
Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses computers and networks (e.g. cloud computing) to present training opportunities to users and evaluate the user’s response. This does not improve the computer qua computer. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers (display, device, interface, processors with executable instructions, e.g., as outlined in Fig. 1 and ¶¶42-48 of Applicant’s specification) as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a system having a processor and a display configured to perform the abstract idea. Applicant’s specification, for example, Fig. 1 and ¶¶42-48, recite off the shelf general purpose computing components such a display, a processor, and a memory for storing instructions that can be executed by a computer. As a result, nothing in Applicant’s specification indicates the computer system performs anything other than well understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving, sending, storing, and processing. See, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (ed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the [S]pecification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.”); see also Alice, 573 US. at 224—26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1340, 1355 (ed. Cir, 2014) (That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). At best, Applicant’s claimed subject matter simply uses generic processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea of converting input data from one form to another (e.g., inputting game results into updated display of score of the game). As noted above, the use of a generic computer system does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As the CAFC has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
As a result, these additional elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step or operation does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-22 are not patent eligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 15-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2019/0192953 by Thakkar (“Thakkar”).
In re claims 1 and 15, Thakkar discloses a system for scorekeeping [Fig. 4, Abstract disclose method and system of portable scorekeeping device including a scoreboard device, a smart wristband device, computer, and/or smart phone, and a scoreboard device functioning with a smart wristband device computer, and/or smart phone] comprising: a display device comprising a scoreboard configured to display a game status based on display configuration information [Fig. 1, Abstract disclose scoreboard 100 to display score of game (i.e., a game status)]; and an application executable by a user device having a user interface, the user device comprising one or more processors in communication with the user interface and the display device, the one or more processors configured with processor-executable instructions included in the application [Fig. 7 shows smart watch #700; Fig. 15 shows processor 1522 and interface 1525, ¶¶11, 12, 47, 59, among others, describe a smart watch 700 with processor 1522 and interface 1525 capable of running applications configured to interact with and update the scoreboard device 100] to at least: send, to the display device, initial display configuration information that causes the display device to display an initial game status [¶¶41, 44, 56-62, among others, describe user selecting a display format for a desired sport, such as tennis, the display is automatically configured to display an appropriate board configure for that sport, the initial score, e.g., 0:0 at the beginning of a game constitutes an initial game status]; receive, from the user interface of the user device, update information associated with the game status [Figs, 9, 15, 16, ¶¶56-62,among others, describe wrist device with user interface for receiving a user input regarding score]; determine updated display configuration information based on the received update information [Figs. 9, 15, 16, ¶¶56-62,among others, describe determining score information based on user input to wearable device for wireless transmission to scoreboard]; and send, to the display device, the updated display configuration information to cause the display device to display an updated game status [Figs. 9, 11, 15, 16, ¶¶56-62, among others, sending update information, such as a point for a team, wirelessly to the scoreboard to present the updated score of the game/contest].
In re claims 2 and 16, Thakkar discloses receiving, from the user interface of the user device, initial game information associated with the game status; and determine the initial display configuration information based on the received initial game information [¶¶52, 57, 59, among others, describe a user interface of a smart device that is used to select a display mode or format for a particular sport, such as tennis, customized view of information for a scoreboard. The first format/mode selected or preset is an initial display configuration for the scoreboard].
In re claims 3 and 17, Thakkar discloses the initial game information comprises a serving position [Fig. 11 shows tennis format including changing the serve].
In re claims 4 and 22, Thakkar discloses the update information associated with the game status comprises an indication of a team winning a rally [¶¶47-49 describe tracking rally information; in addition, keeping score for tennis game. Therefore, when the score is updated after a rally, the point is awarded to the team that wins the rally (and therefore indicates the team that won the rally)].
In re claims 5 and 18, Thakkar discloses wherein the update information comprises an indication of a user selection of one of two selectable options displayed on the user interface, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the updated display configuration information based on the user selection [Fig. 9, ¶¶52, 56, among others, describe an interface with separate buttons for updating the score, such as the home score vs the visitor score (i.e., one of two selectable options to update the score)].
In re claim 6, Thakkar discloses a remote control configured to communicate wirelessly with at least the display device or the user device [¶¶47-49 describes a smart watch may include a remote control to wirelessly connect with the display device, e.g., scoreboard device 100(d) may wirelessly communicate with a wristband device 700 using communicates with the mobile device 500 through one or more of a short-range communication mode such as Bluetooth, ultra-wideband, ZigBee, Wi-Fi, and telecommunication networks using 3G, 4G (LTE), or 5G data].
In re claim 7, Thakkar discloses the remote control is configured to attach to a sports equipment handle, a wearable band, or onto a body of a user [¶48 describes one or more players wearing the smart wristband device 700].
In re claim 9, Thakkar discloses, wherein the user device comprises a smart watch [¶47 describes the wristband device 700 could be an Apple Watch, Samsung Gear, Moto 360, or any other smartwatch].
In re claims 10 and 19, Thakkar discloses the one or more processors of the user device are further configured to iteratively: receive, from the user interface of the user device, additional update information associated with the game status; determine additional updated display configuration information based on the received additional update information; and send, to the display device, the additional updated display configuration information to cause the display device to display a subsequent updated game status [Fig. 16, ¶¶48-56, 60-62, among others, describe smart watch used by player to input score information as a game is played. The scoreboard continuously updates the score and/or game status based on the scoring inputs by the players (i.e., iteratively)].
In re claim 13, Thakkar discloses wherein the display device further comprises a plurality of legs configured to support the display device in an upright position on a surface and to support the display device in an inverted position from a fence or other vertical structure [Figs. 1, 2, and 7, shows display 100 is foldable where the housing holding the displays 110 and 120 when folded for two legs which can when placed on ground support the display 110 in an upright position on a surface such as the ground or net or fence or other vertical structure, ¶34,36,38, moreover it is noted that the language “to support…” recites an intended use of the display and legs without any corresponding structure and, therefore, does not further limit the scope of the claim].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of US Publication No. 2024/0299831 by Salvino et al. (“Salvino”).
In re claim 8, Thakkar discloses remote control of a scoreboard including a wearable remote control; however, Thakkar lacks teaching of mounting a device on a pickleball racket. However, Salvino teaches a scoring device that is configured to be mounted on a handle of a pickleball racket [Figs. 1, 5, 7 show pickleball racket 100 with scorekeeping device 126 and ¶¶6-8,44, 45].
Thakkar and Salvino are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated scoring for racket sports. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the remote scoring system of Thakkar to be mounted on a pickleball racket, as taught by Salvino, in order to enhance the players' overall experience and address play needs, for example, providing racket sports players with a readily available scorekeeping device that facilitates overcoming erroneous scorekeeping and arguments, see, e.g., ¶5,19.
Claims 11, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of US Publication No. 2012/0256373 by Tam et al. (“Tam”).
In re claims 11 and 20, Thakkar discloses determining a score for a folding scoreboard display as updated by a remote input device. To the extent that Thakkar lacks and explicit teaching of a threshold and comparing to an end game score, Tam teaches a folding scoreboard display that is updated by a remote input device and comparing at least a portion of the additional update information or the additional updated display configuration to an end game configuration threshold [¶¶57-60 describe determining end game status including monitoring expiration of time threshold or the game point progress for the score in playing a duce, and comparing the score with the winning point threshold of the selected sport, and for reporting the intermediate or final game results including keeping track of this status in states (106, 114, and 116) in order to determine the final winner].
Thakkar and Tam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated scoring using an electronic display with remote control device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scoring system of Thakkar to include automatic threshold comparison, winner/endgame determination with automatic scoreboard updating to indicate end of game/winner, as taught by Tam, in order to enhance the players' overall experience in playing sports and makes it much more enjoyable and engaging in the activity, which would motivate people to achieve a more active and healthy body and fitness level, see, e.g., ¶6.
In re claims 12 and 21, Thakkar discloses determining a score for a folding scoreboard display as updated by a remote input device. To the extent that Thakkar lacks and explicit teaching of a threshold and comparing to an end game score, Tam teaches a folding scoreboard display that is updated by a remote input device and determine, based on the comparing, that a score of the game has reached the end game configuration threshold; and send, to the display device, an indicator that the end game configuration threshold was met [Fig. 12 shows indication of game or matches won ¶¶57-60 describe determining end game status including monitoring expiration of time threshold or the game point progress for the score in playing a duce, and comparing the score with the winning point threshold of the selected sport, and for reporting the intermediate or final game results including keeping track of this status in states (106, 114, and 116) in order to determine the final winner an update scoreboard e.g., with score and/or buzzer/music to indicate end of game (i.e., threshold met)].
Thakkar and Tam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated scoring using an electronic display with remote control device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scoring system of Thakkar to include automatic threshold comparison, winner/endgame determination with automatic scoreboard updating to indicate end of game/winner, as taught by Tam, in order to enhance the players' overall experience in playing sports and makes it much more enjoyable and engaging in the activity, which would motivate people to achieve a more active and healthy body and fitness level, see, e.g., ¶6.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of US Publication No. 2009/0244832 by Behar et al. (“Behar”).
In re claim 14, Thakkar discloses wherein a display device which may be folded and in which the display information on each display may be displayed with correct orientation. However, Thakkar does not explicitly teach a sensor to determine orientation.
However, Behar teaches foldable display wherein the display device further comprises a sensor configured to detect whether the display device is in an upright position or an inverted position, and wherein the display device is configured to invert graphical information displayed on the scoreboard based on signals received from the sensor [¶¶59, 60, among others, describe a sensor to determine display orientation where the visual display on the display screen 110 is automatically rotated 180 degrees such that the information appears "right-way-up," even through the display screen is upside-down compared to when the portable computer is in the laptop mode].
Thakkar and Behar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of foldable electronic displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scoring system of Thakkar to include the sensor and automated orientation (upright/inverted) of display information, as taught by Behar, in order to enhance the user's overall experience, for example, the user is immediately be able to comfortably view information on the display screen 110, without having to access display screen controls to manually adjust the orientation of the visual display, see, e.g., ¶59.
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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Support found in, e.g., ¶ 122.