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 amendment filed on May 27, 202. Claims 1-22 are currently pending, of which claims 1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “wherein the sensor configured to detect.” This should read --wherein the sensor is configured to detect--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein, wherein.” This should read -- The system of claim 1, wherein --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “A computer-implemented method comprising, by one or more processors of a user device:” The language “comprising, by” is confusing. 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: -- or --A method implemented by one or processors, the method comprising--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the limitations:
orient the graphical information displayed on the scoreboard based on signals received from the sensor such that the visual indication of the first team score, the visual indication of the second team score, and the visual indication of the initial serve position, are each oriented to the indication of the first team position and the indication of the second team position; and
orienting the graphical information displayed on the scoreboard based on signals received from a sensor such that the visual indication of the first team score, the visual indication of the second team score, and the visual indication of the initial serve position, are each oriented to the indication of the first team position and the indication of the second team position; found in claims 4 and 15 recite NEW MATTER.
With regard to limitations 1) and 2), ¶13 of the specification states “In some embodiments, the display device further comprises a sensor configured to detect whether the display device is in an upright position or an inverted position, and the display device is configured to invert graphical information displayed on the scoreboard based on signals received from the sensor.” Similarly, ¶51 of the specification indicates “The one or more sensors 128 can include, for example, a tilt switch and/or an accelerometer configured to determine movement and/or positioning of the display device 104, an ambient light sensor for detecting a brightness of ambient light in the surrounding environment, etc. For example, if the display device 104 is configured to operate in an upright position and in an inverted position, as described below with reference to Figures 3D and 3E, the one or more sensors 128 may be used to detect an orientation of the device so that the score can be displayed upright on the scoreboard display 118. In another example, the display device 104 may adjust the brightness of the scoreboard display 118 based at least in part on a brightness detected by an ambient light sensor.” While these paragraphs mention sensors are used to determine movement and positioning of the device and orientation of the device to display of a score in an upright position, there is no mention using sensor to orient information to an indication of a first team position and/or second team position.
Therefore, claims 4 and 15 contain subject matter which lacks adequate written description, and for at least these reasons, claims 4 and 15 are found to fail the written description requirement. The limitations directed to new matter in claims 4 and 15 should be deleted from the claims.
Claims 16-22 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore also lack written description based on their dependency.
As a result, claims 4 and 15-22 contain subject matter which lacks adequate written description.
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 1-14 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 1, the claim recites “wherein a first pair of the four serve indicator lights are disposed on opposing sides of the first half of the scoreboard and a second pair of the four serve indicator lights are disposed on opposing sides of the second half of the scoreboard.” The claim includes no structural recitations and/or orientations with which to determine what are the sides and what sides are “opposing.” Similarly, it is unclear what constitutes a “half of the scoreboard.” For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as a scoreboard having a planar display surface with four sides, the display surface being divide into two halves with the pair of lights being located on the display surface near the two sides of each half that oppose each other.
In re claim 2, the claim recites “The sensor configured to detect whether the display device is in an upright position or an inverted position.” However, the claim does not include any context or orientation to determine what is upright or inverted. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as a sensor to determine the scoreboard orientation with regard to the earths gravitational field.
In re claim 4, the claim is indefinite as it depends from itself. It is believed this claim should depend from claim 3 (e.g., which includes the antecedents for the claim terms). For purposes of examination, this claim with be interpreted as depending from claim 3.
In re claim 14, recites “an initial serve position” and “a visual indication of the initial serve position.” It is unclear whether the initial server position and the visual indication of the initial serve position recited in claim 14 is the same as or different than the initial server position and the visual indication of the initial serve position recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-14 depend 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 15-22 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 15 recites the following (with emphasis):
A computer-implemented method comprising, by one or more processors of a user device:
sending, to a display device having a scoreboard configured to display a game status, initial display configuration information that causes the display device to display a graphical information including an initial game status, wherein the initial display configuration information includes an indication of a first team position, an indication of a second team position, and an indication of an initial serve position that causes to the scoreboard to display a visual indication of a first team score relative to the first team position, a visual indication of a second team score relative to the second team position, and a visual indication of the initial serve position;
receiving, from a user interface of the user device, update information associated with the game status;
determining updated display configuration information based on the received update information; and
sending, to the display device, the updated display configuration information to cause the display device to display an updated game status orienting the graphical information displayed on the scoreboard based on signals received from a sensor such that the visual indication of the first team score, the visual indication of the second team score, and the visual indication of the initial serve position, are each oriented to the indication of the first team position and the indication of the second team position.
The underlined portions of claim 15 generally encompass the abstract idea. Claims and 16-22 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 or keeping score of 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 processors, display device, an interface, and a sensor, 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 including displaying graphical information including an initial game status, wherein the initial display configuration information includes an indication of a first team position, an indication of a second team position, and an indication of an initial serve position that causes to the scoreboard to display a visual indication of a first team score relative to the first team position, a visual indication of a second team score relative to the second team position, and a visual indication of the initial serve position (e.g., drawing a scoreboard/card with relevant score information 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 with correct orientation to team positions (e.g., write down the determined score using pencil and paper in correct orientation using senses, such as sight). 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, a processor, and sensor 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, sensor, interface, processors, e.g., as outlined in Fig. 1 and ¶¶42-48, 51 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, 51, recite off the shelf general purpose computing components such a display, a processor, a sensor, 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 15-22 are not patent eligible.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1,2, 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0192953 by Thakkar (“Thakkar”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0163990 by Street (“Street”) and further in view of Pickleball Scoreboard Pt 1-5 and corresponding Youtube Video by Bender (“Bender”).
In re claim 1, 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)], the scoreboard comprising: a first one or more lights on a first half of the scoreboard configured to display a first score; a second one or more lights on a second half of the scoreboard configured to display a second score [Figs. 1 and 2 ¶¶34 show lights that display a first and second score 2 to 1]; 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 configured 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].
Thakkar does not explicitly disclose four serve indicator lights disposed peripherally about the scoreboard and configured to provide a visual indication of a serve position, wherein a first pair of the four serve indicator lights are disposed on opposing sides of the first half of the scoreboard and a second pair of the four serve indicator lights are disposed on opposing sides of the second half of the scoreboard wherein the initial display configuration information includes an initial serve position that causes at least one of the four serve indicator lights to display a visual indication of the initial serve position.
However, Street teaches a scoreboard 10 with first lights on a first half of the scoreboard configured to display a first score 101; a second lights on a second half of the scoreboard configured to display a second score 102; and two serve indicator lights 107 and 109 disposed peripherally about the scoreboard and configured to provide a visual indication of a serve position, wherein a serve indicator light 107 are disposed on the first half of the scoreboard and a second indicator light 109 are disposed on a second half of the scoreboard as shown in reproduced Fig. 1 below. In addition, Street provides display configuration information includes a serve position that causes at least one of the two serve indicator lights to display a visual indication of the serve position. The first light 107 or 109 illuminated during a game indicates the initial serve position [¶¶19-23, 31, 32].
PNG
media_image1.png
507
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thakkar and Street 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 include lights indicating serve position, as taught by Street, in order to enhance the players' overall experience and address play needs, for example, to promote accuracy and eliminate or minimize disputes between players regarding a match, see, e.g., ¶¶3-6.
Thakkar in view of Street teaches two serve indicator lights disposed peripherally about the scoreboard and configured to provide a visual indication of a serve position; however, the combination does not explicitly teach four serve indicator lights including a first pair and a second pair.
Bender teaches four serve indicator lights configured to provide a visual indication of a serve position including a first pair and second pair disposed on opposing sides of a first and second half as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
236
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thakkar, Street, and Bender 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 scoring system of Thakkar in view of Street to include two pairs of 4 serving lights with configuration, as taught by Bender, in order to enhance the players' overall experience and address play needs, for example, making it easier to keep track of who is serving in sports like pickle ball to promote accuracy and eliminate or minimize disputes between players regarding any particular game, see, e.g., Pickleball Scoreboard pt 1.
In re claim 2, 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 claim 5, 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 claim 10, 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)].
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of Street and Bender and further in view of US Publication No. 2009/0244832 by Behar et al. (“Behar”).
In re claim 3, Thakkar discloses 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 detect orientation (upright or inverted).
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 [¶¶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.
In re claim 4, Thakkar in view of Street teaches a visual indication of the first team score, a visual indication of a second team score, and a visual indication of the initial serve position, and are each oriented to the indication of the first team position and the indication of the second team position. Thakkar in view of Street lacks an explicit teaching of one or more processors of the display device are configured to orient the graphical information displayed on the scoreboard based on signals received from the sensor.
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 [¶¶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]. Therefore, modifying Thakkar in view Street with Behar will result in the team info being in an upright readable position. As the information displayed by Thakkar in view Street with Behar is already displayed by a corresponding team position, once oriented in an upright position is will be also be oriented corresponding to the team positions.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of Street and Bender and further 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, Street, Bender, 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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of Street and Bender and further in view of US Publication No. 2012/0256373 by Tam et al. (“Tam”).
In re claims 11, 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 claim 12, 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.
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].
Thakkar lacks, but Tam teaches and a scoreboard wherein the display device further comprises an ambient light sensor [¶47 describes to save battery power, a built-in light sensor circuitry (36) is incorporated to sense the ambient lighting of the environment (indoor and outdoor) and automatically adjusting the intensity of the LED displays (38) for optimal viewing. The display will also automatically reduce its intensity during non-active or idle periods of the game to save battery power].
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 ambient light sensor, as taught by Tam, in order to enhance the players' overall experience in playing sports, for example, by accounting for various light conditions and automatically adjusting the intensity of the LED displays for optimal viewing, see, e.g., ¶47.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of Street and further in view of Bender, or, in the alternative over Thakkar in view of Street and further in view of Bender and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0008434 by Swafford (“Swafford”).
In re claim 14, Thakkar in view of Street teaches displaying a score and other information on two halves of a scoreboard. Each half of the board corresponds to a team (and thus a team position). However, to the extent Thakkar in view of Street lacks the initial display configuration information includes an indication of a first team position, an indication of a second team position, and an indication of an initial serve position that causes to the scoreboard to display a visual indication of a first team score relative to the first team position, a visual indication of a second team score relative to the second team position, and a visual indication of the initial serve position, Swafford teaches initial configuration of a pickleball display including team positions and initial server [Fig. 7 shows input information flowchart to provide initial configuration information to identify which player is on which team and service, which is then displayed on a court configuration with highlight corresponding to serving player, ¶¶31-48].
Thakkar, Street, Bender and Swafford are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated scoring. 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 initial display configuration information and corresponding display output, as taught by Swafford, in order to enhance the players' overall experience in playing sports, for example, overcoming the daunting task of keeping track of which team is to serve, which player on the team is to serve, from which court quadrant he or she is to serve from, see, e.g., ¶7.
Claims 15-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view of Street and further in view of Behar.
In re claims 15, Thakkar discloses a method for scorekeeping , by one or more processors of a user device, [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: sending, to a display device having a scoreboard configured to display a game status, initial display configuration information a graphical information including an initial game status [Fig. 1, Abstract disclose scoreboard 100 to display score of game (i.e., a game status) Figs. 1 and 2 ¶¶34 show lights that display a first and second score 2 to 1 ¶¶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 configured for that sport, the initial score, e.g., 0:0 at the beginning of a game constitutes an initial game status]; receiving, from a user interface of the user device, update information associated with the game status [Fig. 7 shows smart watch #700; Fig. 15 shows processor 1522 and interface 1525, ¶¶9,11, 12, 46, 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 Figs, 9, 15, 16, ¶¶56-62,among others, describe wrist device with user interface for receiving a user input regarding score]; determining updated display configuration information based on the received update information [Figs. 9, 11, 15, 16, ¶¶41, 44, 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]; and sending, 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, ¶¶41, 44, 56-62, among others, sending update information, updating display formats with scores and other information].
While Thakkar teaches an initial display configuration information, Thakkar lacks but Street teaches display configuration information includes an indication of a first team position, an indication of a second team position, and an indication of an initial serve position that causes to the scoreboard to display a visual indication of a first team score relative to the first team position, a visual indication of a second team score relative to the second team position, and a visual indication of the initial serve position [Fig. 1, ¶¶19-23, 31, 32, describe indications of first team position and second team positions (e.g., 30 for first team side and the other side for second team-including scores, last point scored, colors etc.). a visual indication of each teams scores 101, 102, and initial server position (107 or 109) when first lit indicates the initial server].
Thakkar and Street 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 include lights indicating serve position, as taught by Street, in order to enhance the players' overall experience and address play needs, for example, to promote accuracy and eliminate or minimize disputes between players regarding a match, see, e.g., ¶¶3-6.
Thakkar in view of Street teach the graphical information displayed on the scoreboard such that the visual indication of the first team score, the visual indication of the second team score, and the visual indication of the initial serve position, are each oriented to the indication of the first team position and the indication of the second team position. However, Thakkar in view of Street does not teach orienting the display based on signals received from a sensor.
However, Behar teaches foldable display wherein the display device (like Thakkar) that further comprises a sensor configured to detect whether the display device is in an upright position or an inverted position and then orient the displayed information based on the sensor signals to be in an upright or readable manner [¶¶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]. Therefore, modifying Thakkar in view Street with Behar will result in the team info being displayed in an upright/readable position. As the information displayed by Thakkar in view Street is already displayed by a corresponding team position, once oriented in an upright position the displayed information oriented such that the visual indicate displayed with be oriented corresponding to the team positions.
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.
In re claim 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 claim 17, Thakkar lacks but Street teaches wherein the initial game information comprises at least one of a serving position or a serving team [Fig. 1, 107, 109, ¶23 describes lights to indicate serving position, the initial setting of either light 107 or 109 will be based on the initial game information to indicate serving position and/or team].
Thakkar and Street 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 include lights indicating serve position, as taught by Street, in order to enhance the players' overall experience and address play needs, for example, to promote accuracy and eliminate or minimize disputes between players regarding a match, see, e.g., ¶¶3-6.
In re claim 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 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 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)].
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thakkar in view Street, Behar, and further in view of Tam.
In re claim 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 claim 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of the substitute sheets or drawings submitted with Applicant’s amendment.
The objection to claim 15 is maintained for the reasons given above. Applicant’s amendment and remarks did not address this objection.
The previous rejection of claims under 112(b) is withdrawn; however, new rejections are made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. These claims as amended recite a specific physical structure and arrangement of elements of the scoreboard integrated with the information processing that is significantly more than recitation of the abstract concept. The rejection of claim 15-21 is maintained. The rejection has been updated in view of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant did not provide any specific arguments addressing the rejection.
The previous rejection of claims as anticipated is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims. However, claims 1-22 have been rejected as obvious over the art of record. Applicant did not provide any substantive arguments with respect to anticipation and obviousness of claims 1-21.
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.
US 2021/0008434 teaches a pickleball display with a graphical representation of the playing court, the correct position of each player is shown on the court, as is the current server and each team's score. the software algorithm and programming run by the internal microprocessor automatically manage the scoring, server position, and recommended player positions according to the rules of the game. When the conditions of winning the game are met, it indicates the winning team on the display.
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 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.
Prosecution Insights