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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings filed 05/12/2026 have been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objection(s) to claim(s) 16-21, Applicant argued that the amendment canceling said claim(s) rendered said objection(s) moot; the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) is/are moot and has/have been effectively withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Drawings, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Abstract, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the double patenting rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-21, Applicant argued on page(s) 8 that the amendment canceling said claim(s) rendered said rejection(s) moot; the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said rejection(s) is/are moot and has/have been effectively withdrawn.
Regarding the 112(b)/2nd indefinite rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-21, Applicant argued on page(s) 8 that the amendment canceling said claim(s) rendered said rejection(s) moot; the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said rejection(s) is/are moot and has/have been effectively withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection(s) of each of independent claim(s) 1, 6, & 7, Applicant argued that Cline does not teach the present invention of impact of the shoe/foot on the ground at different angles, not purely vertical, to gain insight into the friction and traction on or deformation of the ground surface with relation to the footform. However, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain feature(s) of the invention, it is noted that the feature(s) upon which Applicant relies (i.e., shoe/foot/footform, angles, friction/traction, deformation, etc.) is/are not recited in the rejected independent claim(s). Although the claim(s) is/are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claim(s). See MPEP § 2145(VI) and In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection(s) of each of independent claim(s) 1, 6, & 7, Applicant argued that while Cline discloses a (user) interface with input devices, Cline does not teach any specifics regarding the user defined information. MPEP § 2141(II)(C) states: “Office personnel may rely on their own technical expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit has stated that examiners and administrative patent judges on the Board are “persons of scientific competence in the fields in which they work” and that their findings are “informed by their scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 2003, 2007 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In addition, examiners “are assumed to have some expertise in interpreting the references and to be familiar from their work with the level of skill in the art.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 86 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, 725 F.2d 1350, 1360, 220 USPQ 763, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2141 for a discussion of the level of ordinary skill.” In the present case, it remains the Examiner’s position that Cline reasonably teaches receiving configuration information associated with a surface (ground surface) performance test, wherein receiving the configuration information includes receiving, via a user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), test location information (user provided input; at once so envisaged that user inputs the non-automated information through the user interface; additional obviousness provided) for identifying at least one user defined location (site) of a surface (ground surface) to be tested in the surface (ground surface) performance test ([0035] “collect additional data. Examples of other data include soil moisture data, location data (such as global positioning system data), irrigation system location data, soil penetration data, spectrometer data, or other data identifying one or more characteristics of, or related to, the ground surface”; [0063] “one or more additional pieces of data are also collected, such as GPS coordinates, soil moisture measurements, soil penetration measurements, and any other data that can be measured or detected”; [0034] “paths for collecting ground surface hardness data. For example, in some embodiments, the data points are collected along approximately a 10' by 10' grid, although other embodiments utilize other data collection dimensions and arrangements”; [0066] “the spacing and locations of the one or more paths P2 is determined by characteristics of the site S1”; [0081] “user provides inputs to the computing device 200 through one or more input devices 230. Examples of input devices 230 include keyboard 232, mouse 234, touchpad 236, and touch sensitive display 238. Other embodiments include other input devices 230”; [0091] “GPS coordinates”; [0096] “Upon display, a user can evaluate the data points, such as to identify particular regions of the site S1”; [0092] “if GPS coordinates are not available, or if the map is not associated with GPS coordinates, a position of a first point can be visually identified on the map, and subsequent points can be determined”). The Examiner emphasizes that Cline is teaching a user interface—including a touch display with a map—that is providing inputs to the computing device, that the location (exemplary inclusive of particular regions) can be visually identified on the map including for when GPS coordinates are not available or if the map is not associated with GPS coordinates. While the Examiner acknowledges that Cline does not explicitly state the specifics of the user input information, an ordinary artisan would at once reasonably envisage that Clines is implying that the user is the one visually identifying and inputting through the user interface the location data—for example, when the aforementioned automatic GPS coordinates are not properly available. Furthermore, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art) and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). In the present case, the Examiner further previously provided additional obviousness analysis, namely that only routine skill in the art is required to manually input data where it is known to automate the input of data, especially where the prior art teaches a means for manual input of data, and that that manually entering test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230) merely requires common sense and ordinary skill—especially when GPS coordinates are unavailable by automated means or if a map is not already associated with the coordinates—thereby providing useful information such as the coordinates, type of site, spacing, dimensions, paths, etc., and that either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Cline already reasonably teaches inputting test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so have the user manually input data into Cline’s user interface for the aforementioned reasons further including for supplementing any missing (or merely additionally useful) information, for correcting any information that is found by the user to be in error, and/or for saving on hardware costs, software costs, &/or reducing complexity (see rejections for further details). Therefore, the Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument. The Examiner additionally notes that supporting factual evidence of the common sense & ordinary skill has further been provided in the Conclusion; see also MPEP § 2144.03.
Yet further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 6, and 7, that the apparatus of Cline and the apparatus of Yngve are incompatible, because Yngve drops an object vertically and focuses on ground surface hardness while Yngve actuates a footform to impact the ground surface at different angles. However, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner emphasizes that “[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review”, In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and that “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). See MPEP § 2145(III). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that the combination of prior art does not require bodily incorporation of all aspects of said prior art.
Furthermore, as previously noted, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. In the present case, the Examiner has taken into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ and determined that both (i.e., two-way analysis): it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated surface performance testing with Cline’s method and associated structure for generating a graphical representation associated with a surface test apparatus, thereby providing the expected advantages of evaluating forces—such as friction and traction forces—acting at the footwear/turf interface which allows one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same; and that complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cline’s grid pattern measurement and graphical representation of the surface testing with Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated method for the expected purpose of mapping out collected measurements and assisting the user in visualizing the properties of the surface being tested. The Examiner is therefore unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments pertaining to bodily incorporation from further aspects to render an incompatibility between these analogous prior art.
For all of the above reasons, and for the reasons as put forth in the rejections below, the prior art rejections are retained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Cline et al (US 20130055797 A1; hereafter “Cline”) in view of Applicant previously cited Yngve (US 20120297889 A1; hereafter “Yngve”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Cline teaches a method for generating a graphical representation (see exemplary figs. 7, 8, 14, 15) associated with surface (ground surface) performance (broadly reasonable to interpret as performance; additional obviousness analysis provided) test information (Title “EVALUATION OF GROUND SURFACE HARDNESS”; Abstract “Evaluating ground surface hardness for a site involves using a mobile data collection device to automatically drop an object including an accelerometer onto a ground surface at sample locations spaced at regular intervals within the site”; [0006] “generating a value representative of ground surface hardness for each of the sample locations”; [0030] “The site typically includes a playing surface that is configured for the playing of a sport or other activity. An example of a site is a playing field, such as a field (e.g., a football field, a soccer field, a baseball field), a track (e.g., a horse track, a running track), a golf course (e.g., the putting green, fairway, rough, or tee box)”; [0031] “Turf includes both natural turfgrass as well as synthetic turf systems”; [0033] “Examples of ground surface hardness measurement devices are illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 2-3”), the method comprising:
at a computing platform (fig. 6 comprising computing device 200) ([0073] “FIG. 6 is a schematic block diagram illustrating an example computing device 200 of an example surface hardness evaluation system. In addition, the example computing device 200 is also an example of a computing device that can be used to perform one or more of the methods, operations, computations, or processes discussed herein by other computing devices”) including a processor (fig. 6, processing device 202) and a memory (fig. 6, memory 204)([0075] “Computing device 200 includes, in some embodiments, at least one processing device 202 and memory 204. A variety of processing devices 202 are available from a variety of manufacturers, for example, Intel or Advanced Micro Devices. In some embodiments, the processing device 202 is configured to perform one or more methods or operations as defined by instructions stored in a memory device”; [0076] “Computing device 200 also includes, in some embodiments, at least one memory device 204. Examples of memory devices 204 include read-only memory 208 and random access memory 210. Basic input/output system 212, containing the basic routines that act to transfer information within computing device 200, such as during start up, is typically stored in read-only memory 208. Memory device 204 can be a part of processing device 202 or can be separate from processing device 202”; [0067] “a table 160 is stored in a memory device of computing device 138 of data collection vehicle 132. In some embodiments, after the data points 142 are collected, the data is transferred from computing device 138 to a computer storage medium, such as a CD or flash drive, or to another computing device, such as across a network”):
receiving configuration information associated with a surface (ground surface) performance test, wherein receiving the configuration information includes receiving, via a user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), test location information (user provided input; at once so envisaged that user inputs the non-automated information through the user interface; additional obviousness provided) for identifying at least one user defined location (site) of a surface (ground surface) to be tested in the surface (ground surface) performance test ([0035] “collect additional data. Examples of other data include soil moisture data, location data (such as global positioning system data), irrigation system location data, soil penetration data, spectrometer data, or other data identifying one or more characteristics of, or related to, the ground surface”; [0063] “one or more additional pieces of data are also collected, such as GPS coordinates, soil moisture measurements, soil penetration measurements, and any other data that can be measured or detected”; [0034] “paths for collecting ground surface hardness data. For example, in some embodiments, the data points are collected along approximately a 10' by 10' grid, although other embodiments utilize other data collection dimensions and arrangements”; [0066] “the spacing and locations of the one or more paths P2 is determined by characteristics of the site S1”; [0081] “user provides inputs to the computing device 200 through one or more input devices 230. Examples of input devices 230 include keyboard 232, mouse 234, touchpad 236, and touch sensitive display 238. Other embodiments include other input devices 230”; [0091] “GPS coordinates”; [0096] “Upon display, a user can evaluate the data points, such as to identify particular regions of the site S1”; [0092] “if GPS coordinates are not available, or if the map is not associated with GPS coordinates, a position of a first point can be visually identified on the map, and subsequent points can be determined”);
obtaining surface (ground surface) performance test information acquired using at least one surface (ground surface) performance test apparatus (ground surface hardness measurement devices; see exemplary figs. 2-3); and
generating at least one graphical representation indicating the surface (ground surface) performance test information associated with the at least one user defined location ([0018] “map display graphically depicting collected data to permit visual evaluation of ground surface hardness values”; [0019] “map display graphically depicting the collected data”; [0025] “example map display for another exemplary site, illustrating collected and interpolated hardness data”; [0026] “example map display illustrating the standard deviations of the hardness data”; [0036] “data processing is performed to interpolate the data, and to plot the data on a map of the site to permit visual inspection and evaluation of the ground hardness data”; [0098] “graphically depicting the collected data”; [0101] “using colors associated with ranges”; [0103] “surface hardness evaluation system compares the data points to other data as part of the evaluation. For example, the locations of the sprinkler heads can be used to look for correlations between the locations of sprinkler heads and the ground surface hardness”).
While it is the Examiner's position that Cline reasonably teaches a broad interpretation of surface performance testing by a surface performance test apparatus, the Examiner acknowledges item 1): structural differences of the instant disclosure’s surface performance test apparatus and Cline. Similarly, while Cline reasonably suggests to an ordinary artisan that a user is using the input devices & interface to input information pertaining to the location, the Examiner nevertheless acknowledges item 2): that Cline does not explicitly state the specifics of the user input information.
Regarding item 1), Yngve teaches a method for generating a graphical representation associated with surface performance test information from using at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) (Title “TURF TESTING APPARATUS AND METHODS”; [0005] “apparatuses and methods for testing turf or other surfaces and footwear or other structures that interact with such surfaces, including evaluating forces, such as, but not limited to, friction and traction forces acting at the footwear/turf interface”; [0008] “study the force environments during impact and at other times during the shoe/turf surface interface, and may allow one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same”; [0009]-[0014]; [0031] “FIGS. 4 and 5 show an embodiment of the turf testing apparatus 10 as illustrated in FIG. 1”; [0032] “FIG. 6 illustrates various components associated with a monitoring and control system 60 associated with the assembly 10”; [0014] “FIG. 6 is another perspective view of the apparatus shown in FIG. 4”; [0033] “turf surfaces, including various types of flooring, dirt surfaces, gravel surfaces, hard surfaces, soft surfaces or other surfaces, including surfaces in orientations other than horizontal surfaces, such as vertical and inclined surfaces”), the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) comprising: a cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) slidably affixed to a rail (fig. 6, track 36) ([0024]-[0026]); one or more wheels (fig. 6, wheels 64) for transportability ([0032] “apparatus 10 has an external framework 62 that rests on wheels 64, allowing the movement of the apparatus 10 with respect to the turf 14”; [0025] “mobility of the entire apparatus 10 may be facilitated by deployable wheels or other suitable structure or functionality associated with the external framework”); an actuator (actuator comprising first & second; only actuator 22 is labeled) linked to the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) ([0026] “Carriage 26 may be driven along the elongated track 36 (along substantially horizontal axis 34) by another actuator”; [0019]-[0022], [0027]-[0028], [0031]); and a footform (fig. 6, foot-form/shoe 12; Examiner notes foot-form/shoe is not labeled in fig. 6, see figs. 1-3 for labeling) affixed to the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) ([0016] “although not shown in the Figures, the shoe 12 is mounted to a foot-form (for instance, a conventional shoe tree) allowing the shoe 12 to be securely associated with the apparatus 10, while also allowing the shoe 12 to be removed and interchanged with other footwear for testing”), wherein the footform (foot-form/shoe 12) is configured to mimic a human foot, animal hoof or animal foot ([0012] “Shoe 12 may be any type of footwear (including cleated and non-cleated footwear) or other construct for investigation (including, without limitation, a construct simulating a bare foot, an animal paw or hoof, or some other type of construct for investigation”), wherein the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26), rail (fig. 6, track 36) and actuator (actuator comprising first & second) are arranged to move the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) and attached footform (foot-form/shoe 12) at an angle relative to a substantially horizontal surface (fig. 6, surface 14) to be tested, whereby the footform (foot-form/shoe 12) contacts the surface (fig. 6, surface 14) to be tested at a desired contact angle ([0022] “shoe sub-assembly 24 will cause it to be initially biased at an approximately 11 degree angle. In some embodiments, the initial angle of shoe 12 may be adjustable, or may be pre-set for other angulations”; [0023] “particular angular orientation”; [0027] “at an angle (when viewed from the side) of approximately 11 degrees to the turf surface 14”; [0030] “use of a wide variety of footwear, at different angles of impaction (in angular and normal planes to the turf surface), and at various simulated body weights and running speeds”), the method comprising:
at a computing platform (fig. 6, control system 60) ([0032] “combination of computer and manual controls”) including a processor (computer) and a memory (at once so envisaged; memory of computer):
receiving configuration information associated with a surface performance test (Abstract “testing turf or other surfaces),
wherein receiving the configuration information includes receiving, via a user interface (manual controls cooperating with computer system), manual input;
obtaining surface performance test information acquired using the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) ([0008] “study the force environments during impact and at other times during the shoe/turf surface interface, and may allow one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same”); and
generating at least one graphical representation indicating the surface performance test information associated with the test location ([0029], [0032] “The force readings may be recorded, for instance, as a function of force vs. distance traveled (e.g. horizontal position of the carriage 26), as a function of force vs. time, or in other manners. Data reflecting the force readings may be output as tables, charts, or in other manners”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated surface performance testing with Cline’s method and associated structure for generating a graphical representation associated with a surface test apparatus, thereby providing the expected advantages of evaluating forces—such as friction and traction forces—acting at the footwear/turf interface which allows one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cline’s grid pattern measurement and graphical representation of the surface testing with Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated method for the expected purpose of mapping out collected measurements and assisting the user in visualizing the properties of the surface being tested. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding item 2):
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). The Examiner notes in the present case, that the Examiner is putting forth a similar assessment that only routine skill in the art is required to manually input data where it is known to automate the input of data, especially where the prior art teaches a means for manual input of data.
Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that manually entering test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230) merely requires common sense and ordinary skill—especially when GPS coordinates are unavailable by automated means or if a map is not already associated with the coordinates—thereby providing useful information such as the coordinates, type of site, spacing, dimensions, paths, etc., as well as any additional data (ETC.) to associate within the tables of information being stored, including additional data of interest in Yngve such as particular foot/footwear utilized in surface performance testing.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Cline already reasonably teaches inputting test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so have the user manually input data into Cline’s user interface for the aforementioned reasons further including for supplementing any missing (or merely additionally useful) information, for correcting any information that is found by the user to be in error, and/or for saving on hardware costs, software costs, &/or reducing complexity.
Regarding independent claim 6,
Cline teaches a system for generating a graphical representation associated with surface (ground surface) performance (broadly reasonable to interpret as performance; additional obviousness analysis provided) test information (Title “EVALUATION OF GROUND SURFACE HARDNESS”; Abstract “Evaluating ground surface hardness for a site involves using a mobile data collection device to automatically drop an object including an accelerometer onto a ground surface at sample locations spaced at regular intervals within the site”; [0006] “generating a value representative of ground surface hardness for each of the sample locations”; [0030] “The site typically includes a playing surface that is configured for the playing of a sport or other activity. An example of a site is a playing field, such as a field (e.g., a football field, a soccer field, a baseball field), a track (e.g., a horse track, a running track), a golf course (e.g., the putting green, fairway, rough, or tee box)”; [0031] “Turf includes both natural turfgrass as well as synthetic turf systems”; [0033] “Examples of ground surface hardness measurement devices are illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 2-3”), the system comprising:
a computing platform (fig. 6, control system 60) ([0073] “FIG. 6 is a schematic block diagram illustrating an example computing device 200 of an example surface hardness evaluation system. In addition, the example computing device 200 is also an example of a computing device that can be used to perform one or more of the methods, operations, computations, or processes discussed herein by other computing devices”) comprising a processor (fig. 6, processing device 202) and a memory (fig. 6, memory 204) ([0075] “Computing device 200 includes, in some embodiments, at least one processing device 202 and memory 204. A variety of processing devices 202 are available from a variety of manufacturers, for example, Intel or Advanced Micro Devices. In some embodiments, the processing device 202 is configured to perform one or more methods or operations as defined by instructions stored in a memory device”; [0076] “Computing device 200 also includes, in some embodiments, at least one memory device 204. Examples of memory devices 204 include read-only memory 208 and random access memory 210. Basic input/output system 212, containing the basic routines that act to transfer information within computing device 200, such as during start up, is typically stored in read-only memory 208. Memory device 204 can be a part of processing device 202 or can be separate from processing device 202”; [0067] “a table 160 is stored in a memory device of computing device 138 of data collection vehicle 132. In some embodiments, after the data points 142 are collected, the data is transferred from computing device 138 to a computer storage medium, such as a CD or flash drive, or to another computing device, such as across a network”),
receiving configuration information associated with a surface (ground surface) performance test, wherein receiving the configuration information includes receiving, via a user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), test location information (user provided input; at once so envisaged that user inputs the non-automated information through the user interface; additional obviousness provided) for identifying at least one user defined location (site) of a surface (ground surface) to be tested in the surface (ground surface) performance test ([0035] “collect additional data. Examples of other data include soil moisture data, location data (such as global positioning system data), irrigation system location data, soil penetration data, spectrometer data, or other data identifying one or more characteristics of, or related to, the ground surface”; [0063] “one or more additional pieces of data are also collected, such as GPS coordinates, soil moisture measurements, soil penetration measurements, and any other data that can be measured or detected”; [0034] “paths for collecting ground surface hardness data. For example, in some embodiments, the data points are collected along approximately a 10' by 10' grid, although other embodiments utilize other data collection dimensions and arrangements”; [0066] “the spacing and locations of the one or more paths P2 is determined by characteristics of the site S1”; [0081] “user provides inputs to the computing device 200 through one or more input devices 230. Examples of input devices 230 include keyboard 232, mouse 234, touchpad 236, and touch sensitive display 238. Other embodiments include other input devices 230”; [0091] “GPS coordinates”; [0096] “Upon display, a user can evaluate the data points, such as to identify particular regions of the site S1”; [0092] “if GPS coordinates are not available, or if the map is not associated with GPS coordinates, a position of a first point can be visually identified on the map, and subsequent points can be determined”);
obtaining surface (ground surface) performance test information acquired using at least one surface (ground surface) performance test apparatus (ground surface hardness measurement devices; see exemplary figs. 2-3); and
generating at least one graphical representation indicating the surface (ground surface) performance test information associated with the at least one user defined location ([0018] “map display graphically depicting collected data to permit visual evaluation of ground surface hardness values”; [0019] “map display graphically depicting the collected data”; [0025] “example map display for another exemplary site, illustrating collected and interpolated hardness data”; [0026] “example map display illustrating the standard deviations of the hardness data”; [0036] “data processing is performed to interpolate the data, and to plot the data on a map of the site to permit visual inspection and evaluation of the ground hardness data”; [0098] “graphically depicting the collected data”; [0101] “using colors associated with ranges”; [0103] “surface hardness evaluation system compares the data points to other data as part of the evaluation. For example, the locations of the sprinkler heads can be used to look for correlations between the locations of sprinkler heads and the ground surface hardness”).
While it is the Examiner's position that Cline reasonably teaches a broad interpretation of surface performance testing by a surface performance test apparatus, the Examiner acknowledges item 1): structural differences of the instant disclosure’s surface performance test apparatus and Cline. Similarly, while Cline reasonably suggests to an ordinary artisan that a user is using the input devices & interface to input information pertaining to the location, the Examiner nevertheless acknowledges item 2): that Cline does not explicitly state the specifics of the user input information.
Regarding item 1), Yngve teaches a system for generating a graphical representation associated with surface performance test information from using at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) (Title “TURF TESTING APPARATUS AND METHODS”; [0005] “apparatuses and methods for testing turf or other surfaces and footwear or other structures that interact with such surfaces, including evaluating forces, such as, but not limited to, friction and traction forces acting at the footwear/turf interface”; [0008] “study the force environments during impact and at other times during the shoe/turf surface interface, and may allow one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same”; [0009]-[0014]; [0031] “FIGS. 4 and 5 show an embodiment of the turf testing apparatus 10 as illustrated in FIG. 1”; [0032] “FIG. 6 illustrates various components associated with a monitoring and control system 60 associated with the assembly 10”; [0014] “FIG. 6 is another perspective view of the apparatus shown in FIG. 4”; [0033] “turf surfaces, including various types of flooring, dirt surfaces, gravel surfaces, hard surfaces, soft surfaces or other surfaces, including surfaces in orientations other than horizontal surfaces, such as vertical and inclined surfaces”), the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) comprising: a cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) slidably affixed to a rail (fig. 6, track 36) ([0024]-[0026]); one or more wheels (fig. 6, wheels 64) for transportability ([0032] “apparatus 10 has an external framework 62 that rests on wheels 64, allowing the movement of the apparatus 10 with respect to the turf 14”; [0025] “mobility of the entire apparatus 10 may be facilitated by deployable wheels or other suitable structure or functionality associated with the external framework”); an actuator (actuator comprising first & second; only actuator 22 is labeled) linked to the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) ([0026] “Carriage 26 may be driven along the elongated track 36 (along substantially horizontal axis 34) by another actuator”; [0019]-[0022], [0027]-[0028], [0031]); and a footform (fig. 6, foot-form/shoe 12; Examiner notes foot-form/shoe is not labeled in fig. 6, see figs. 1-3 for labeling) affixed to the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) ([0016] “although not shown in the Figures, the shoe 12 is mounted to a foot-form (for instance, a conventional shoe tree) allowing the shoe 12 to be securely associated with the apparatus 10, while also allowing the shoe 12 to be removed and interchanged with other footwear for testing”), wherein the footform (foot-form/shoe 12) is configured to mimic a human foot, animal hoof or animal foot ([0012] “Shoe 12 may be any type of footwear (including cleated and non-cleated footwear) or other construct for investigation (including, without limitation, a construct simulating a bare foot, an animal paw or hoof, or some other type of construct for investigation”), wherein the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26), rail (fig. 6, track 36) and actuator (actuator comprising first & second) are arranged to move the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) and attached footform (foot-form/shoe 12) at an angle relative to a substantially horizontal surface (fig. 6, surface 14) to be tested, whereby the footform (foot-form/shoe 12) contacts the surface (fig. 6, surface 14) to be tested at a desired contact angle ([0022] “shoe sub-assembly 24 will cause it to be initially biased at an approximately 11 degree angle. In some embodiments, the initial angle of shoe 12 may be adjustable, or may be pre-set for other angulations”; [0023] “particular angular orientation”; [0027] “at an angle (when viewed from the side) of approximately 11 degrees to the turf surface 14”; [0030] “use of a wide variety of footwear, at different angles of impaction (in angular and normal planes to the turf surface), and at various simulated body weights and running speeds”), the system comprising:
a computing platform (fig. 6, control system 60) ([0032] “combination of computer and manual controls”) including a processor (computer) and a memory (at once so envisaged; memory of computer), wherein the computing platform (fig. 6, control system 60) is configured for:
receiving configuration information associated with a surface performance test (Abstract “testing turf or other surfaces),
wherein receiving the configuration information includes receiving, via a user interface (manual controls cooperating with computer system), manual input;
obtaining surface performance test information acquired using the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) ([0008] “study the force environments during impact and at other times during the shoe/turf surface interface, and may allow one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same”); and
generating at least one graphical representation indicating the surface performance test information associated with the test location ([0029], [0032] “The force readings may be recorded, for instance, as a function of force vs. distance traveled (e.g. horizontal position of the carriage 26), as a function of force vs. time, or in other manners. Data reflecting the force readings may be output as tables, charts, or in other manners”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated surface performance testing with Cline’s method and associated structure for generating a graphical representation associated with a surface test apparatus, thereby providing the expected advantages of evaluating forces—such as friction and traction forces—acting at the footwear/turf interface which allows one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cline’s grid pattern measurement and graphical representation of the surface testing with Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated method for the expected purpose of mapping out collected measurements and assisting the user in visualizing the properties of the surface being tested. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding item 2):
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). The Examiner notes in the present case, that the Examiner is putting forth a similar assessment that only routine skill in the art is required to manually input data where it is known to automate the input of data, especially where the prior art teaches a means for manual input of data.
Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that manually entering test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230) merely requires common sense and ordinary skill—especially when GPS coordinates are unavailable by automated means or if a map is not already associated with the coordinates—thereby providing useful information such as the coordinates, type of site, spacing, dimensions, paths, etc., as well as any additional data (ETC.) to associate within the tables of information being stored, including additional data of interest in Yngve such as particular foot/footwear utilized in surface performance testing.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Cline already reasonably teaches inputting test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so have the user manually input data into Cline’s user interface for the aforementioned reasons further including for supplementing any missing (or merely additionally useful) information, for correcting any information that is found by the user to be in error, and/or for saving on hardware costs, software costs, &/or reducing complexity.
Regarding independent claim 7,
Cline teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (computer readable media; fig. 6, memory 204) comprising computer executable instructions embodied in the computer readable medium that when executed by a processor (fig. 6, processing device 202) of a computer (fig. 6 comprising computing device 200) cause the computer (fig. 6 comprising computing device 200) to perform steps comprising (Title “EVALUATION OF GROUND SURFACE HARDNESS”; Abstract “Evaluating ground surface hardness for a site involves using a mobile data collection device to automatically drop an object including an accelerometer onto a ground surface at sample locations spaced at regular intervals within the site”; [0006] “generating a value representative of ground surface hardness for each of the sample locations”; [0030] “The site typically includes a playing surface that is configured for the playing of a sport or other activity. An example of a site is a playing field, such as a field (e.g., a football field, a soccer field, a baseball field), a track (e.g., a horse track, a running track), a golf course (e.g., the putting green, fairway, rough, or tee box)”; [0031] “Turf includes both natural turfgrass as well as synthetic turf systems”; [0033] “Examples of ground surface hardness measurement devices are illustrated and described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 2-3”; [0075] “Computing device 200 includes, in some embodiments, at least one processing device 202 and memory 204. A variety of processing devices 202 are available from a variety of manufacturers, for example, Intel or Advanced Micro Devices. In some embodiments, the processing device 202 is configured to perform one or more methods or operations as defined by instructions stored in a memory device”; [0076] “Computing device 200 also includes, in some embodiments, at least one memory device 204. Examples of memory devices 204 include read-only memory 208 and random access memory 210. Basic input/output system 212, containing the basic routines that act to transfer information within computing device 200, such as during start up, is typically stored in read-only memory 208. Memory device 204 can be a part of processing device 202 or can be separate from processing device 202”; [0067] “a table 160 is stored in a memory device of computing device 138 of data collection vehicle 132. In some embodiments, after the data points 142 are collected, the data is transferred from computing device 138 to a computer storage medium, such as a CD or flash drive, or to another computing device, such as across a network”; [0084] “Computing device 200 typically includes at least some form of computer-readable media. Computer readable media include any available media that can be accessed by computing device 200. By way of example, computer-readable media include computer readable storage media and communication media”; [0085] “The term computer readable media as used herein includes computer storage media” and “computer readable storage media is non-transitory media”):
receiving configuration information associated with a surface (ground surface) performance test, wherein receiving the configuration information includes receiving, via a user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), test location information (user provided input; at once so envisaged that user inputs the non-automated information through the user interface; additional obviousness provided) for identifying at least one user defined location (site) of a surface (ground surface) to be tested in the surface (ground surface) performance test ([0035] “collect additional data. Examples of other data include soil moisture data, location data (such as global positioning system data), irrigation system location data, soil penetration data, spectrometer data, or other data identifying one or more characteristics of, or related to, the ground surface”; [0063] “one or more additional pieces of data are also collected, such as GPS coordinates, soil moisture measurements, soil penetration measurements, and any other data that can be measured or detected”; [0034] “paths for collecting ground surface hardness data. For example, in some embodiments, the data points are collected along approximately a 10' by 10' grid, although other embodiments utilize other data collection dimensions and arrangements”; [0066] “the spacing and locations of the one or more paths P2 is determined by characteristics of the site S1”; [0081] “user provides inputs to the computing device 200 through one or more input devices 230. Examples of input devices 230 include keyboard 232, mouse 234, touchpad 236, and touch sensitive display 238. Other embodiments include other input devices 230”; [0091] “GPS coordinates”; [0096] “Upon display, a user can evaluate the data points, such as to identify particular regions of the site S1”; [0092] “if GPS coordinates are not available, or if the map is not associated with GPS coordinates, a position of a first point can be visually identified on the map, and subsequent points can be determined”);
obtaining surface (ground surface) performance test information acquired using at least one surface (ground surface) performance test apparatus (ground surface hardness measurement devices; see exemplary figs. 2-3); and
generating at least one graphical representation indicating the surface (ground surface) performance test information associated with the at least one user defined location ([0018] “map display graphically depicting collected data to permit visual evaluation of ground surface hardness values”; [0019] “map display graphically depicting the collected data”; [0025] “example map display for another exemplary site, illustrating collected and interpolated hardness data”; [0026] “example map display illustrating the standard deviations of the hardness data”; [0036] “data processing is performed to interpolate the data, and to plot the data on a map of the site to permit visual inspection and evaluation of the ground hardness data”; [0098] “graphically depicting the collected data”; [0101] “using colors associated with ranges”; [0103] “surface hardness evaluation system compares the data points to other data as part of the evaluation. For example, the locations of the sprinkler heads can be used to look for correlations between the locations of sprinkler heads and the ground surface hardness”).
While it is the Examiner's position that Cline reasonably teaches a broad interpretation of surface performance testing by a surface performance test apparatus, the Examiner acknowledges item 1): structural differences of the instant disclosure’s surface performance test apparatus and Cline. Similarly, while Cline reasonably suggests to an ordinary artisan that a user is using the input devices & interface to input information pertaining to the location, the Examiner nevertheless acknowledges item 2): that Cline does not explicitly state the specifics of the user input information.
Regarding item 1), Yngve teaches a method for generating a graphical representation associated with surface performance test information from using at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) (Title “TURF TESTING APPARATUS AND METHODS”; [0005] “apparatuses and methods for testing turf or other surfaces and footwear or other structures that interact with such surfaces, including evaluating forces, such as, but not limited to, friction and traction forces acting at the footwear/turf interface”; [0008] “study the force environments during impact and at other times during the shoe/turf surface interface, and may allow one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same”; [0009]-[0014]; [0031] “FIGS. 4 and 5 show an embodiment of the turf testing apparatus 10 as illustrated in FIG. 1”; [0032] “FIG. 6 illustrates various components associated with a monitoring and control system 60 associated with the assembly 10”; [0014] “FIG. 6 is another perspective view of the apparatus shown in FIG. 4”; [0033] “turf surfaces, including various types of flooring, dirt surfaces, gravel surfaces, hard surfaces, soft surfaces or other surfaces, including surfaces in orientations other than horizontal surfaces, such as vertical and inclined surfaces”), the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) comprising: a cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) slidably affixed to a rail (fig. 6, track 36) ([0024]-[0026]); one or more wheels (fig. 6, wheels 64) for transportability ([0032] “apparatus 10 has an external framework 62 that rests on wheels 64, allowing the movement of the apparatus 10 with respect to the turf 14”; [0025] “mobility of the entire apparatus 10 may be facilitated by deployable wheels or other suitable structure or functionality associated with the external framework”); an actuator (actuator comprising first & second; only actuator 22 is labeled) linked to the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) ([0026] “Carriage 26 may be driven along the elongated track 36 (along substantially horizontal axis 34) by another actuator”; [0019]-[0022], [0027]-[0028], [0031]); and a footform (fig. 6, foot-form/shoe 12; Examiner notes foot-form/shoe is not labeled in fig. 6, see figs. 1-3 for labeling) affixed to the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) ([0016] “although not shown in the Figures, the shoe 12 is mounted to a foot-form (for instance, a conventional shoe tree) allowing the shoe 12 to be securely associated with the apparatus 10, while also allowing the shoe 12 to be removed and interchanged with other footwear for testing”), wherein the footform (foot-form/shoe 12) is configured to mimic a human foot, animal hoof or animal foot ([0012] “Shoe 12 may be any type of footwear (including cleated and non-cleated footwear) or other construct for investigation (including, without limitation, a construct simulating a bare foot, an animal paw or hoof, or some other type of construct for investigation”), wherein the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26), rail (fig. 6, track 36) and actuator (actuator comprising first & second) are arranged to move the cart (fig. 6, carriage 26) and attached footform (foot-form/shoe 12) at an angle relative to a substantially horizontal surface (fig. 6, surface 14) to be tested, whereby the footform (foot-form/shoe 12) contacts the surface (fig. 6, surface 14) to be tested at a desired contact angle ([0022] “shoe sub-assembly 24 will cause it to be initially biased at an approximately 11 degree angle. In some embodiments, the initial angle of shoe 12 may be adjustable, or may be pre-set for other angulations”; [0023] “particular angular orientation”; [0027] “at an angle (when viewed from the side) of approximately 11 degrees to the turf surface 14”; [0030] “use of a wide variety of footwear, at different angles of impaction (in angular and normal planes to the turf surface), and at various simulated body weights and running speeds”), the method comprising:
at a computing platform (fig. 6, control system 60) ([0032] “combination of computer and manual controls”) including a processor (computer) and a memory (at once so envisaged; memory of computer):
receiving configuration information associated with a surface performance test (Abstract “testing turf or other surfaces),
wherein receiving the configuration information includes receiving, via a user interface (manual controls cooperating with computer system), manual input;
obtaining surface performance test information acquired using the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) ([0008] “study the force environments during impact and at other times during the shoe/turf surface interface, and may allow one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same”); and
generating at least one graphical representation indicating the surface performance test information associated with the test location ([0029], [0032] “The force readings may be recorded, for instance, as a function of force vs. distance traveled (e.g. horizontal position of the carriage 26), as a function of force vs. time, or in other manners. Data reflecting the force readings may be output as tables, charts, or in other manners”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated surface performance testing with Cline’s media, method, & associated structure for generating a graphical representation associated with a surface test apparatus, thereby providing the expected advantages of evaluating forces—such as friction and traction forces—acting at the footwear/turf interface which allows one to reach conclusions about the suitability of a particular turf surface or shoe, or to compare and contrast a turf surface and/or shoe with other turf surfaces and shoes in order to test and/or improve the same. Complementarily, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cline’s non-transitory readable storage media and associated system having grid pattern measurement and graphical representation of the surface testing with Yngve’s surface performance test apparatus and associated method for the expected purpose of mapping out collected measurements and assisting the user in visualizing the properties of the surface being tested, as well as for conveniently providing explicit storage of the method which can be commercially distributed, updated, and/or replaced. The Examiner additionally notes that the Courts have ruled an obviousness analysis based on the collective teachings of the references does not depend on the order in which the references are listed in the statement of the rejection. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961): “In a case of this type where a rejection is predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.”
Regarding item 2):
It has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(III) and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). The Examiner notes in the present case, that the Examiner is putting forth a similar assessment that only routine skill in the art is required to manually input data where it is known to automate the input of data, especially where the prior art teaches a means for manual input of data.
Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that manually entering test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230) merely requires common sense and ordinary skill—especially when GPS coordinates are unavailable by automated means or if a map is not already associated with the coordinates—thereby providing useful information such as the coordinates, type of site, spacing, dimensions, paths, etc., as well as any additional data (ETC.) to associate within the tables of information being stored, including additional data of interest in Yngve such as particular foot/footwear utilized in surface performance testing.
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Cline already reasonably teaches inputting test location information (user provided input) into Cline’s user interface (fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230), or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to so have the user manually input data into Cline’s user interface for the aforementioned reasons further including for supplementing any missing (or merely additionally useful) information, for correcting any information that is found by the user to be in error, and/or for saving on hardware costs, software costs, &/or reducing complexity.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
the previous combination of Cline and Yngve (see analysis of independent claim) suggest
wherein the graphical representation includes a (silent) heatmap, (silent) a bar graph, (silent) a pie chart, an interactive graph, or an interactive chart (Cline: [0093] “values are displayed upon mouse-over, or upon clicking on a data point”; [0082] “display device 242 and touch sensitive display 238 are the same device”; [0096] “Upon display, a user can evaluate the data points, such as to identify particular regions of the site S1”; and see chart in fig. 9, see graphs in figs. 7, 8, & 12-15. Yngve: [0032] “Data reflecting the force readings may be output as tables, charts, or in other manners”); or
wherein the surface performance test information includes information about the surface (see e.g., Cline fig. 5), (silent) information about the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus), information about footwear or test instruments (Examiner’s previous combination suggests information about Yngve foot/footwear as part of the ETC in the Table), and/or information about interactions between the footwear and the surface or the at least one surface performance test apparatus (turf testing apparatus) and the surface (e.g., hardness, force readings, friction, traction, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
the previous combination of Cline and Yngve (see analysis of independent claim) reasonably suggests wherein the user interface (Cline, fig. 6, interface 240 with input devices 230) is a graphical user interface (Cline: [0082] “display device 242 and touch sensitive display 238 are the same device”; [0092] “a position of a first point can be visually identified on the map”; [0096] “Upon display, a user can evaluate the data points, such as to identify particular regions of the site S1”; at once envisaged that a GUI is utilized with a touchscreen) and wherein receiving the test location information includes a user (user) indicating multiple user defined locations (site, path, start, stop, spacing, etc.) by interacting with a visual representation of the surface (Cline: [0066] “For example, if the site S1 is a football field, the path P2 can be positioned relative to the yard lines. In an American football field, yard lines are typically provided at five yard intervals across the field. In one example, the rows of the path P2 are positioned at midpoints between yard lines (e.g., 2.5 yards, 7.5 yards, 12.5 yards, etc.). A benefit of taking measurements between yard lines is that it reduces the effect that paint may have on the hardness measurements. For example, the paint may slightly increase hardness measurements taken on a yard line. In another possible embodiment, at least some of the measurements are taken on the yard lines” and “paint”; [0103] “For example, the locations of the sprinkler heads”. Examiner’s position is that it is at once envisaged that the user is interacting with the touchscreen and visual representation to define the aforementioned parameters and to avoid elements such as lines, paint, etc.).
The Examiner acknowledges that Cline does not explicitly state items: 1): that Cline’s touchscreen comprises a graphical user interface; and 2) that Cline’s touchscreen is used to interact with Cline’s visual representations to define locations.
Regarding item 1), the Examiner previously took Official Notice that GUI are well-known in the art and that utilizing a GUI with a touchscreen is conventional. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Cline’s touchscreen has a GUI, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a conventional GUI therewith for the expected purpose of providing a user interface that enables the user to interact with the visual elements by touch.
Regarding item 2):
The Examiner previously took Official Notice that a user interacting with a GUI for a visual representation of data on a touchscreen interface is conventional. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
The Examiner again notes that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that utilizing Cline’s touchscreen to interact with Cline’s visually represented map of the site to define with the touchscreen user interface Cline’s aforementioned parameters merely requires common sense applied to routine activity, and thus enables the user to avoid testing at locations outside of the site, locations where there is paint (e.g., paint defining locations for sports such as football), and/or other elements to avoid (e.g., sprinkler heads).
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Cline’s touchscreen is so used to interact with Cline’s visual representations, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to commonsensically utilize Cline’s touchscreen to interact with Cline’s visually represented map of the site to define with the touchscreen user interface Cline’s aforementioned parameters for the aforementioned advantages.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
the previous combination of Cline and Yngve (see analysis of independent claim) reasonably suggests wherein the surface performance test information includes information about soil moisture (Cline, fig. 5), surface hardness (Cline, fig. 5) (Cline: [0035] “In addition to ground hardness data, some embodiments also collect additional data. Examples of other data include soil moisture data, location data (such as global positioning system data), irrigation system location data, soil penetration data, spectrometer data, or other data identifying one or more characteristics of, or related to, the ground surface"), (additional limitations in the alternative silent and/or presently unaddressed) head impact criteria, vertical deformation, energy restitution, force reduction, rotational traction, linear traction, infill depth, grass percentage, plant count, and/or surface temperature.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1,
the previous combination of Cline and Yngve (see analysis of independent claim) reasonably suggests wherein the configuration information includes color information for indicating one or more colors or shades of a color to use when generating the at least one graphical representation (Cline: [0095] “graphical elements include different colors, where the colors are associated with hardness values. For example, a first color (e.g., red) is used to display data points having relatively high hardness values, and a second color (e.g., green) is used to display data points having relatively low hardness values. Multiple colors can be used, with each color used to represent different ranges of hardness values”; [0101] “Any quantity of colors can be used, as desired. For example, the quantity of colors is in a range from 3 to 10. In other possible embodiments, tens, hundreds, or even thousands of colors are used”; at once so envisaged that a user enters the desired colors).
Cline does not explicitly state wherein the configuration information input by the user includes configuring the color information for the graphical representation.
However, the Examiner previously took Official Notice that utilizing color information in graphical representations is conventional, and further previously took Official Notice that choosing/configuring the color scheme for a graphical representation is likewise routine in the art (the Examiner notes as a quick & trivial example that even Microsoft® Word utilized to write this Office Action has long allowed for a user to choose/configure color schemes for graphical representation of data). As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Cline teaches the user configuring the desired color scheme, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine conventional user choosing of color schemes for the expected purpose of customization, user preference, for artistic/commercial utility, and/or to provide better contrast against background map/data colors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner. The Examiner notes in particular with respect to the Examiner’s assessment of common sense and ordinary skill with regards inputting user defined locations the following factual evidence:
US 8688374 B1 col. 6, ll. 10-18 “a user 110 may directly provide the location information by direct input to a user interface on the user device (not depicted), as is well understood by designers of user interfaces for user devices”;
US 20130013196 A1 [0003] “GPS hardware can obtain a signal indicating the position of the user, or the user may be provided with standard routing requiring the user to input a starting location rather than relying on the user's current location”;
US 20180172468 A1 [0018] “a method for utilizing user input indicating user location as perceived by the user as a parameter in a positioning module in order to correct errors resulting from conventional map-matching typically in conditions of insufficient GPS signal, accumulated DR errors or discrepancies in map database information”;
US 20090157498 A1 [0014] “conventional route generation, a user inputs a starting location and intended destination as well as several constraints concerning a route”; and
US 20130006749 A1 [0004] “conventional systems and methods that do at least display a user's current position require a user to manually input location or destination information”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is (303) 297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 26MAY2026
Prosecution Insights