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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II relating to claims 8-21 and 43-50 in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made to the application’s status as a 371 of PCT/US2022/077629 filed 10/05/2022, which claims priority to provisional application 63/266,805 filed 01/14/2022, and provisional application 63/262,121 filed 10/05/2021. As such the earliest date of priority of 10/05/2021 is granted to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13,14-19, 21, and 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “calculating a sequence score using the respective scores” on line 6. It is unclear what the sequence score is meant to be as claim 8 which claim 13 depends upon, already claims calculating “a score” for the impact event, and the specification of the instant application provides no further definition as to what is different between the score calculated in claim 8, the respective score used in the calculation of the sequence score, and the sequence score itself.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “each impact zone” on line 4. It is unclear if this is referring to the target impact zones, or the non-target impact zones claimed on lines 2-3 of the claim, or if this is referring to the plurality of virtual impact zones of claim 8, or the plurality of physical impact zones also claimed in claim 8, or to all of the impact zones claimed thus far.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “recognizing a predefined motion of a secondary sensor” on line 2. It is unclear whether the claimed limitation is intended to mean that the secondary sensor itself is moving, and based on this movement if matching a predefined motion, engages the system to start recording the response time of the user, or if the claimed limitation is meant to mean that there is a secondary sensor separate from the sensors that detect impacts in the impact zone, that tracks the movements of the user and that when the user’s motion matches a predefined motion the start time is recorded. The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application in paragraph [00111] merely repeats the claim language and is the only instance where the claimed limitation is mentioned.
Claim 44 recites the limitation “each impact zone” on line 4. It is unclear if this is referring to the target impact zones, or the non-target impact zones claimed on lines 2-3 of the claim, or if this is referring to the plurality of virtual impact zones of claim 43, or the plurality of physical impact zones also claimed in claim 43, or to all of the impact zones claimed thus far.
Dependent claims 15-19, and 45-49 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8, 12-17,19-20,43-47, and 49-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. US 10124227 B1, and further in view of Sheedy US 20090048069 A1.
Regarding claim 8:
Morin teaches a method (the examiner notes that as stated in col. 1 lines 6-8 the subject of the invention relates to punching systems and methods) comprising: providing a user interface (display interface 500) that displays a plurality of virtual impact zones (representation 504 of the strike pad array. See col.4 lines 4-7 and figure 5) , the plurality of virtual impact zones corresponding to a plurality of physical impact zones (strike zone 110. The examiner notes that throughout Morin the strike pad array 104 which includes all the strike zones 110is discussed with different reference numerals such as 104,204,304 and the 700 numerals when discussing a specific set of features of the strike pad array, however each one is the same embodiment of the invention throughout the disclosure.) on an impact apparatus (Training system 100), each impact zone of the plurality of physical impact zones configured to generate voltage in response to impact (“As will be described, each of the strike zones 110 includes an embedded force sensor, and a zone is lit by a set of embedded LEDs 112 that encircle the zone when the user strikes the zone with appropriate accuracy, force and timing.” See col. 2 lines 45-49. The examiner notes that it is known that a force sensor detects an impact by converting a mechanical force applied to them into an electrical signal which is a generated voltage.); receiving, via the user interface, selection of a target impact zone from the plurality of virtual impact zones (“Using an input/output device, the user inputs strike pad cues on the grid lines, such that these cues are then selectively aligned (timed) to occur at various points in the audio.” See col. 4 lines 11-14); transmitting the target impact zone to the impact apparatus (“The information comprising the session (typically the audio file and the set of programming) is then transmitted or otherwise provided (by hardwire connection) to the controller unit 105 and the session initiated.” See col.4 lines 28-32) and recording a start time, wherein the impact apparatus changes an appearance of the target impact zone in response to receiving the target impact zone (“As will be described, the LEDs 316 and 310 (from the center outward) are configured to provide an LED “runway” that is selectively activated to telegraph to the user that the associated strike pad should be hit.” See col.3 lines 17-21. The examiner notes that the LED runway is activated according to the cues from the controller, and that the system has been discussed measuring the speed and timing of the user, which corresponds directly to a start time since the system calculates the user score based on their timing when striking the pads as they are cued by the LEDs.); receiving, from the impact apparatus, voltage information generated in response to an impact event (“the controller unit includes processor-based (or electronics) suitably programmed by software (or otherwise configured) to output the programmed hit sequence (i.e., to provide the control signals that activate the LEDs), and to detect and record electrical signals generated by the force sensors as the user strikes the pads” See col.3 lines 48-53) , the impact event being an impact of an object on the impact apparatus (The examiner notes that since the invention is related to a striking pad meant to be hit by a user, either punching kicking, or any strike in general, all impact events are an impact of an object on the impact apparatus); and in response to receiving the voltage information generated in response to the impact event: recording a stop time in response to the impact event and calculating a response time based on elapsed time measured between the start time and the stop time (The examiner notes that as discussed above and in col.3 lines 40-44 the timing the user strikes the pads with in relation to the LED cues which is used to calculate the user’s score throughout the session show that the users response time is detected by the system and start and stop times for when the user needs to strike the pad correlating to when the pad LED is lit must be recorded in order for the system to function.); determining a magnitude of the impact event for the target impact zone based on the voltage information that is attributed to the target impact zone (The examiner notes that a magnitude of the impact event is determined by Morin since the force sensors determine the maximum pressure exerted on the force sensors during a strike as discussed in col. 3 lines 56-62.) ; calculating a score for the impact event based on a reciprocal of the response time and the magnitude (“As the user interacts with the system, speed, timing and accuracy preferably are measured by the force sensors and the associated controller unit to determine a score or to provide other information.” See col.3 lines 40-44).
[AltContent: textbox (the interactive exercise and training system comprising a flexible body supporting a strike pad array mounted on a punching bag, together with an associated controller unit.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
550
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (a user interface of a programming tool that is used to create a custom training session that associates a music source with a set of configured strike pad hit point locations and timing)]
PNG
media_image2.png
422
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Morin fails to teach updating the user interface to reflect the score.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches updating the user interface to reflect the score (“The information provided by the display 52' may include calories expended in an aerobic mode, rounds of the fight in fight mode, time elapsed in the boxing session or round, punches thrown/landed, score, accuracy and/or power of impacts or other information.” See paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Morin to include a step where the user interface display is updated to reflect the score of the user as taught by Sheedy, as this allows the user to receive real-time feedback during the striking session and they do not need to stop to review their performance data.
Regarding claim 9:
Morin as modified discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the voltage information includes, for at least one physical impact zone, voltage measured during an impact period lasting less than half a second (The examiner notes that the limitation of an impact period lasting less than half a second has not been positively recited, and is being used as functional language regarding when voltage information from the impact event is collected. Therefore any impact in which the voltage is collected would have a period where contact is made and measured by the system lasting less than half a second, and Morin discusses in col. 3 lines 56-62, how the controller filters information from the sensors to determine characteristics of strikes on the impact zones including when there is a rapid change in the pressure readings and the maximum force value is collected before the pressure returns below a threshold, showing that the impact is detected when the voltage peaks and returns in a short time such as when struck by a punch in the case of the boxing system of Morin.)
Regarding claim 10:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the target impact zone is a first target impact zone (See the rejection of claim 8 above which discusses both the virtual target zones 504 on the display of Morin) the method including: receiving, via the user interface, selection of a second target impact zone of the plurality of virtual impact zones (The examiner notes that as discussed above in the rejection of claim 8, the selection of target zones in sequence according to the cued LED and sensor activation brought on by either the inputs from an input/output device, or the selection of preprogrammed exercise sessions or activity profiles include the selection of sequential target activation which inherently has a first and second target), wherein the impact apparatus further changes an appearance of the second target impact zone (The targets of Morin are lit b, wherein the changed appearance of the first target impact zone differs from the changed appearance of the second target impact zone (As stated above in the rejection of claim 8 each sequential lighting of the LEDs to cue the user to strike the next target in the exercise session causes a new set of LEDs for the second target to be lit, and the original set for the first target shut off when struck which causes the appearance of the second target to be different from the first target) and transmitting the first target impact zone and the second target impact zone to the impact apparatus (See rejection of claim 8 above regarding transmitting the target zones to the impact apparatus).
Morin fails to teach wherein the first target impact zone is assigned a first weight and the second target impact zone is assigned a second weight; and transmitting the first target impact zone and the second target impact zone to the impact apparatus.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the first target impact zone is assigned a first weight and the second target impact zone is assigned a second weight (“Where the precision impact sensor 44' is used, impacts occurring in the inner precision impact sensor 44' circle may be scored as more precise impacts, while impacts received primarily or entirely in the outer circle impact sensor 36' may be scored as less precise impacts.” See paragraph [0027]. The examiner notes that as the weights are not defined any further by the specification of the instant application, Sheedy having higher scored points for more precise impacts when the second target 44’ is struck, and lower scores for the 36’ targets show that there are different weights applied by the system when it detects impacts at the first and second target zones.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morin to apply first and second weights to the first and second target impact zones respectively as taught by Sheedy as this causes the system to more accurately score the user, and thereby provide more accurate performance feedback for the user since they would be able to see how the core reflects which set of impact zones they struck during the session.
Regarding claim 11:
Morin as modified by Sheedy discloses the method of claim 10, wherein in response to receiving the voltage information generated in response to the impact event the method further comprises: determining a magnitude of the impact event for the second target impact zone based on the voltage information associated that is attributed to the second target impact zone (The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 8, the system of Morin already determines the magnitude of the impact events every time the force is measured by the force sensor in the impact zones); calculating a first weighted magnitude by applying the first weight to the magnitude of the impact event calculated for the first target impact zone (The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application states in paragraph [0032] that the weights of the target impact zones are 1, and therefore the weighted magnitude calculated by the system of Morin and Sheedy combined since a score is applied would be the magnitude of the force detected); calculating a second weighted magnitude by applying the second weight to the magnitude of the impact event calculated for the second target impact zone (The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application states in paragraph [0032] that the weights of the target impact zones are 1, and therefore the weighted magnitude calculated by the system of Morin and Sheedy combined since a score is applied would be the magnitude of the force detected); and calculating, as the score, a combined score for the impact event by combining the reciprocal of the response time with the first weighted magnitude and the second weighted magnitude (As stated above in the rejection of claim 8 the score for each impact event is calculated with by the force, speed, accuracy, and timing of each strike as they impact each target impact zone, and as stated above in the rejection of claim 10 Sheedy applies different weights to each impact depending on which target impact zone the user strikes and adds the scores for a session total.)
Regarding claim 12:
Morin as modified discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, via the user interface, a sequence of target zones, the target impact zone being included in the sequence of target zones (“Using an input/output device, the user inputs strike pad cues on the grid lines, such that these cues are then selectively aligned (timed) to occur at various points in the audio.” See col. 4 lines 11-14); and transmitting the sequence of target zones to the impact apparatus (“The information comprising the session (typically the audio file and the set of programming) is then transmitted or otherwise provided (by hardwire connection) to the controller unit 105 and the session initiated.” See col.4 lines 28-32), wherein the impact apparatus is configured to serially change an appearance of the physical impact zones corresponding to the target impact zones in the sequence of target zones (“Typically, this cueing occurs throughout a session (or portion thereof), with different strike pads thereby being selected identified (randomly, or in some programmed sequence) to the user. As the LED runway lights are activated, they cue (telegraph) to the user that the associated pad (at the end of the runway) should then be hit” See col. 3 lines 23-28), with progression through the sequence of target zones being triggered by an impact event to any of the plurality of physical impact zones (“In particular, preferably the LEDs arranged on the connecting portion serve as a runway with the LEDs being lit progressively from the center portion and outward toward the strike pad to be hit next in a programmed hit sequence.” See col. 1 lines 50-53. The examiner notes that in order for the next LED runway to activate and for the user to score they must strike the pad currently lit).
Regarding claim 13:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving, from the impact apparatus, respective voltage information generated in response to each impact event (See rejection of claim 8 above, which discusses how every impact event causes the force sensor to measure the force of the impact and generate voltage information); calculating a respective score for each target impact zone in the sequence of target zones from the voltage information attributed to the target impact zone (See rejection of claim 8 above, which discusses how every impact event causes the system to generate a score for the respective strike based on the speed, accuracy, and timing of the strike.);
Morin fails to teach calculating a sequence score using the respective scores (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that the sequence score is being considered as a session total score under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural and functional limitations, due to independent impact scores being claimed above in claim 8.).
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches calculating a sequence score using the respective scores (“The performance data may also be a score determined by the number of impacts received by the impact sensor(s) 36, force, speed and/or accuracy of impact, comparison of impact from punches and kicks, comparison of the current session to previous boxing sessions, and/or other data.” See paragraph [0023], where the session score would be the sequence score since it is the overall score of each impact together during the session) and updating the user interface to reflect the sequence score The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 8, the display of Sheedy keeps track of the score throughout the session, and displays overall session statistics as stated above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scoring system of Morin to add the scores of each impact together for the session as the user strikes the impact zones in sequence as taught by Sheedy since Morin already scores the strikes and signals which impact zone to hit according to the sequence input.
Regarding claim 14:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 8, wherein receiving the target impact zone includes receiving an activity profile (The examiner notes that throughout the specification of the instant application the activity profile of the invention is discussed as having the various settings, weights, and controls that determine the impact zones for the system, therefore as stated above in the rejection of claim 8, Morin includes a programmed interface or set of settings which can be loaded by the controller or manually inputted by a user to activate the impact zones and various settings for the exercise session and is therefore being considered as receiving an activity profile from the application or program), the activity profile indicating target impact zones (As stated above in the rejection of claim 8 the program indicates which striking target the user needs to hit in sequence according to the loaded session) and wherein calculating the score for the impact event includes: determining, for each impact zone (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, each impact zone in the case of the instant claim is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations as each physical impact zone of the plurality of physical impact zones since they are where the sensors to detect and measure the forces of each strike are located.), a magnitude of the impact event based on voltage information attributable to the impact zone (“In one embodiment, a punch detection and measurement algorithm implements a moving threshold that filters the pressure reading from a force sensor; on a punch, the pressure reading changes rapidly and passes a threshold, and the algorithm determines the force to record preferably by taking a maximum value before the pressure reading returns below the threshold or a timeout occurs. See col. 3 lines 56-62); calculating a target magnitude by combining the magnitudes for the target impact zones (The examiner notes as stated above in the citation of col.3 lines 56-62 the target impact zone magnitudes are calculated from the algorithm detecting a punch and detecting when the force exceeds a moving threshold of how much the pressure reading changes in how short of a time, which applies to each target of the system during exercise and therefore an overall target magnitude).
Morin fails to teach the activity profile indicating non-target impact zones calculating a non-target magnitude by combining the magnitudes for the non-target impact zones; and calculating the score as a difference between the target magnitude and the non-target magnitude combined with the reciprocal of the response time.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches the activity profile indicating non-target impact zones (“The impact sensors 36' may have different color spots for upper and lower target areas, and may also use a different color for a "low blow" impact sensor 37' indicating an area that should not receive impacts.” See paragraph [0028]. The examiner notes that the system indicating a specific target should not be hit in a session, and having an impact sensor to detect when the no-hit target is struck, is the activity profile indicating a non-target impact zone.) calculating a non-target magnitude by combining the magnitudes for the non-target impact zones (“There may also be a deduction for a low blow when impacts are detected in the low blow impact sensor 37 area.” See paragraph [0043], with the examiner noting that since a deduction is made when the system detects a strike to the non-impact zone there must be a non-target magnitude for the system to register that an impact event occurred the same way the system detects the impact events for the target impact zones); and calculating the score as a difference between the target magnitude and the non-target magnitude combined with the reciprocal of the response time (The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 8, the score is calculated based on a reciprocal of the target magnitude and the response time, and Sheedy specifically teaches in paragraph [0043] that there is a deduction for when impacts are depicted in the low blow impact sensor 37 area, which as discussed above is a non-target impact zone. Therefore the score is calculated with the difference between correct hits in the various impact zones and the non-target impact zone impacts.).
Regarding claim 15:
Morin as modified discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the activity profile includes a respective weight for each impact zone (The examiner notes that since each strike which impacts the correct impact zone receives a score there is at least a weight of 1 applied to the impact zone) and wherein, for each impact zone, the magnitude of the impact event for the impact zone is multiplied by the respective weight for the impact zone (The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application states in paragraph [0032] that the weights of the target impact zones are 1, and since the magnitude of force of each impact is used in scoring, this weight is multiplied to the magnitude in order for the user to receive the score).
Regarding claim 16:
Morin as modified by Sheedy teaches the method of claim 15, wherein calculating the score as a difference between the target magnitude and the non-target magnitude is accomplished by using negative weights for non-target zones (The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 14, which claim 15 depends on, which claim 16 depends on, the non-target impact zones are scored as a deduction from the overall score by the system therefore they must use a negative weight in order to be subtracted during the exercise session.).
Regarding claim 17:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the weights correspond to an expertise level.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the weights correspond to an expertise level (Paragraph [0022] of discusses how the controller receives personal characteristic data from the user input device and determines performance data that is then weighted based on said personal characteristic data, with paragraph [0029] further specifying various examples of personal characteristic data that can be inputted including “user skill level (beginner, intermediate, advanced, etc.)”,which are the same as an expertise level of a user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morin to have the weights correspond to an expertise level as taught by Sheedy, as this would allow the system to accommodate a wider range of users with more/less experience and those with more experience would make more progress during training since it would be more difficult to achieve higher scores than those at the beginner level.
Regarding claim 19:
Morin as modified by Sheedy teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising: updating the user interface to display the magnitude of the impact for each impact zone (As stated above in the rejection of claim 8, Morin as modified by Sheedy uses the display of the application or connected computer devices to display information about the exercise session including the score of the user, with Sheedy further specifying in paragraph [0029] that the information provided by the display can include the power of impacts detected by the force sensors, where the magnitude of the impact is a measure of the strength or intensity of a force on an object).
Regarding claim 20:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the start time is recorded in response to recognizing a voice command of a user.
The examiner notes that Morin does teach using the inputs from the controller or user interface to determine when the start time is recorded, but that specifically the input of a recognized voice command is not taught.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches using voice commands as an input to record the start time (“In the illustrated example, the user input device 32' is a keypad carried by the controller housing 41', but it should be noted that other suitable input devices (e.g., microphone for voice input, etc.” See paragraph [0031])).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morin to use voice commands to start recording the start time of the impact events as taught by Sheedy, as this allows the user to have hands free control over the user interface and controller of the system.
Regarding claim 43:
Morin teaches a method (the examiner notes that as stated in col. 1 lines 6-8 the subject of the invention relates to punching systems and methods) comprising: providing a user interface (display interface 500) that displays a plurality of virtual impact zones (representation 504 of the strike pad array. See col.4 lines 4-7 and figure 5) , the plurality of virtual impact zones corresponding to a plurality of physical impact zones (strike zone 110. The examiner notes that throughout Morin the strike pad array 104 which includes all the strike zones 110is discussed with different reference numerals such as 104,204,304 and the 700 numerals when discussing a specific set of features of the strike pad array, however each one is the same embodiment of the invention throughout the disclosure.) on an impact apparatus (Training system 100), each impact zone of the plurality of physical impact zones configured to generate voltage in response to impact (“As will be described, each of the strike zones 110 includes an embedded force sensor, and a zone is lit by a set of embedded LEDs 112 that encircle the zone when the user strikes the zone with appropriate accuracy, force and timing.” See col. 2 lines 45-49. The examiner notes that it is known that a force sensor detects an impact by converting a mechanical force applied to them into an electrical signal which is a generated voltage.); receiving, via the user interface, a profile, the profile including identification of at least two impact zones of the plurality of physical impact zones as target impact zones, remaining impact zones in the plurality of physical impact zones being non-target impact zones; receiving, from the impact apparatus, voltage information generated in response to an impact event, the impact event being an impact of an object on the impact apparatus; and in response to receiving the voltage information generated in response to the impact event: determining, for each target impact zone, a magnitude of the impact event for the target impact zone based on the voltage information associated with the target impact zone; calculating a score for the impact event based the magnitudes.
Morin fails to teach updating the user interface to reflect the score.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches updating the user interface to reflect the score (“The information provided by the display 52' may include calories expended in an aerobic mode, rounds of the fight in fight mode, time elapsed in the boxing session or round, punches thrown/landed, score, accuracy and/or power of impacts or other information.” See paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Morin to include a step where the user interface display is updated to reflect the score of the user as taught by Sheedy, as this allows the user to receive real-time feedback during the striking session and they do not need to stop to review their performance data.
Regarding claim 44:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 43, wherein receiving the target impact zone includes receiving an activity profile (The examiner notes that throughout the specification of the instant application the activity profile of the invention is discussed as having the various settings, weights, and controls that determine the impact zones for the system, therefore as stated above in the rejection of claim 8, Morin includes a programmed interface or set of settings which can be loaded by the controller or manually inputted by a user to activate the impact zones and various settings for the exercise session and is therefore being considered as receiving an activity profile from the application or program), the activity profile indicating target impact zones (As stated above in the rejection of claim 8 the program indicates which striking target the user needs to hit in sequence according to the loaded session) and wherein calculating the score for the impact event includes: determining, for each impact zone (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, each impact zone in the case of the instant claim is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations as each physical impact zone of the plurality of physical impact zones since they are where the sensors to detect and measure the forces of each strike are located.), a magnitude of the impact event based on voltage information attributable to the impact zone (“In one embodiment, a punch detection and measurement algorithm implements a moving threshold that filters the pressure reading from a force sensor; on a punch, the pressure reading changes rapidly and passes a threshold, and the algorithm determines the force to record preferably by taking a maximum value before the pressure reading returns below the threshold or a timeout occurs. See col. 3 lines 56-62); calculating a target magnitude by combining the magnitudes for the target impact zones (The examiner notes as stated above in the citation of col.3 lines 56-62 the target impact zone magnitudes are calculated from the algorithm detecting a punch and detecting when the force exceeds a moving threshold of how much the pressure reading changes in how short of a time, which applies to each target of the system during exercise and therefore an overall target magnitude).
Morin fails to teach the activity profile indicating non-target impact zones calculating a non-target magnitude by combining the magnitudes for the non-target impact zones; and calculating the score as a difference between the target magnitude and the non-target magnitude.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches the activity profile indicating non-target impact zones (“The impact sensors 36' may have different color spots for upper and lower target areas, and may also use a different color for a "low blow" impact sensor 37' indicating an area that should not receive impacts.” See paragraph [0028]. The examiner notes that the system indicating a specific target should not be hit in a session, and having an impact sensor to detect when the no-hit target is struck, is the activity profile indicating a non-target impact zone.) calculating a non-target magnitude by combining the magnitudes for the non-target impact zones (“There may also be a deduction for a low blow when impacts are detected in the low blow impact sensor 37 area.” See paragraph [0043], with the examiner noting that since a deduction is made when the system detects a strike to the non-impact zone there must be a non-target magnitude for the system to register that an impact event occurred the same way the system detects the impact events for the target impact zones); and calculating the score as a difference between the target magnitude and the non-target magnitude (The examiner notes that as stated above in paragraph [0043] of Sheedy that there is a deduction for when impacts are depicted in the low blow impact sensor 37 area, which as discussed above is a non-target impact zone. Therefore the score is calculated with the difference between correct hits in the various impact zones and the non-target impact zone impacts.).
Regarding claim 45:
Morin as modified discloses the method of claim 44, wherein the activity profile includes a respective weight for each impact zone (The examiner notes that since each strike which impacts the correct impact zone receives a score there is at least a weight of 1 applied to the impact zone) and wherein, for each impact zone, the magnitude of the impact event for the impact zone is multiplied by the respective weight for the impact zone (The examiner notes that the specification of the instant application states in paragraph [0032] that the weights of the target impact zones are 1, and since the magnitude of force of each impact is used in scoring, this weight is multiplied to the magnitude in order for the user to receive the score).
Regarding claim 46:
Morin as modified by Sheedy teaches the method of claim 45, wherein calculating the score as a difference between the target magnitude and the non-target magnitude is accomplished by using negative weights for non-target zones (The examiner notes that as stated above in the rejection of claim 14, which claim 15 depends on, which claim 16 depends on, the non-target impact zones are scored as a deduction from the overall score by the system therefore they must use a negative weight in order to be subtracted during the exercise session.).
Regarding claim 47:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 45, but fails to teach wherein the weights correspond to an expertise level.
Sheedy, however, teaches a boxing device including a substrate, at least one impact sensor carried by the substrate for detecting impacts from the at least one user, a user input device for receiving personal characteristic data for the at least one user, and a controller coupled to the impact sensor and the user input device (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the weights correspond to an expertise level (Paragraph [0022] of discusses how the controller receives personal characteristic data from the user input device and determines performance data that is then weighted based on said personal characteristic data, with paragraph [0029] further specifying various examples of personal characteristic data that can be inputted including “user skill level (beginner, intermediate, advanced, etc.)”,which are the same as an expertise level of a user).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morin to have the weights correspond to an expertise level as taught by Sheedy, as this would allow the system to accommodate a wider range of users with more/less experience and those with more experience would make more progress during training since it would be more difficult to achieve higher scores than those at the beginner level.
Regarding claim 49:
Morin as modified by Sheedy teaches the method of claim 44, further comprising: updating the user interface to display the magnitude of the impact for each impact zone (As stated above in the rejection of claim 43, Morin as modified by Sheedy uses the display of the application or connected computer devices to display information about the exercise session including the score of the user, with Sheedy further specifying in paragraph [0029] that the information provided by the display can include the power of impacts detected by the force sensors, where the magnitude of the impact is a measure of the strength or intensity of a force on an object).
Regarding claim 50:
Morin as modified discloses the method of claim 43, further comprising: recording a start time in response to a command from a user (“As will be described, the LEDs 316 and 310 (from the center outward) are configured to provide an LED “runway” that is selectively activated to telegraph to the user that the associated strike pad should be hit.” See col.3 lines 17-21. The examiner notes that the LED runway is activated according to the cues from the controller which a user interacts with by inputting the target impact zones, and that the system has been discussed above in the rejection of claim 43, measuring the speed and timing of the user, which corresponds directly to a start time since the system calculates the user score based on their timing when striking the pads as they are cued by the LEDs.); and in response to receiving the voltage information: recording a stop time in response to the impact event (The examiner notes that as discussed above and in col.3 lines 40-44 the timing the user strikes the pads with in relation to the LED cues which is used to calculate the user’s score throughout the session show that the users response time is detected by the system and start and stop times for when the user needs to strike the pad correlating to when the pad LED is lit must be recorded in order for the system to function), and calculating a response time based on elapsed time measured by the start time and the stop time, wherein calculating the score is further based on a reciprocal of the response time (“As the user interacts with the system, speed, timing and accuracy preferably are measured by the force sensors and the associated controller unit to determine a score or to provide other information.” See col.3 lines 40-44. The examiner notes that since the speed and timing of each strike in relation to the cue for the start time is determined by the system in order to score the user, how long the user takes to respond to the visual cue must be included in the analysis and scoring of each strike).
Claim(s) 18 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. US 10124227 B1, in view of Sheedy US 20090048069 A1, and further in view of Sotelo US 9586120 B1.
Morin as modified teaches the invention substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 18:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein at least one physical impact zone is in padding worn by a user striking the impact apparatus.
Sotelo, however, teaches an apparatus for a lifelike, automated, heavy punching bag that can parry punches using robotic arms able to rotate to right and left, and sense and record the weight and accuracy of punches delivered to it (See abstract), and further teaches wherein at least one physical impact zone is in padding worn by a user striking the impact apparatus (“Each of pair of boxing-gloves 160 comprise a plurality of glove-sensors 168 able to record punches to punching-bag 117 such that micro-processor 128 is able to detect which of right-glove 162 and left-glove 164 delivered punches to punching-bag 117 during the training session.” See col. 6 lines 27-32).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impact zones of Morin, to include at least one in padding worn by the user striking the impact apparatus as taught by Sotelo, as this would allow the system to collect more accurate data regarding the users strikes, such as accuracy and speed, since the direct contact of the gloves/padding on the impact apparatus would be measured in addition to the force at which the impact zones of the apparatus are struck.
Regarding claim 48:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 44, but fails to teach wherein at least one physical impact zone is in padding worn by a user striking the impact apparatus.
Sotelo, however, teaches an apparatus for a lifelike, automated, heavy punching bag that can parry punches using robotic arms able to rotate to right and left, and sense and record the weight and accuracy of punches delivered to it (See abstract), and further teaches wherein at least one physical impact zone is in padding worn by a user striking the impact apparatus (“Each of pair of boxing-gloves 160 comprise a plurality of glove-sensors 168 able to record punches to punching-bag 117 such that micro-processor 128 is able to detect which of right-glove 162 and left-glove 164 delivered punches to punching-bag 117 during the training session.” See col. 6 lines 27-32).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impact zones of Morin, to include at least one in padding worn by the user striking the impact apparatus as taught by Sotelo, as this would allow the system to collect more accurate data regarding the users strikes, such as accuracy and speed, since the direct contact of the gloves/padding on the impact apparatus would be measured in addition to the force at which the impact zones of the apparatus are struck.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morin et al. US 10124227 B1, in view of Sheedy US 20090048069 A1, and further in view of COX et al. US 20220032155 A1.
Morin as modified teaches the invention substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 21:
Morin as modified teaches the method of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the start time is recorded in response to recognizing a predefined motion of a secondary sensor (The examiner notes that due to the unclear nature of the claim language, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above, that the claimed limitation is being considered under the broadest reasonable interpretation with no further structural or functional limitations, to mean that a secondary sensor recognizes a predefined motion which instructs the system to record the start time.) .
COX, however, teaches a method including projecting an object toward an impact device along a trajectory, receiving the object at a target zone of the impact device, a trainee striking the impact device at an impact zone with a sports tool, and scoring a performance score of the trainee to impact the impact zone at an appropriate time compared to an arrival time of the object at the target zone (See abstract), and further teaches wherein the start time is recorded in response to recognizing a predefined motion of a secondary sensor (“Additionally, the predetermined time interval can be established by gestures of the trainee 8 (or coach 4) or through other user inputs.” See paragraph [0218], with paragraph [0273] outlining that a stride sensor is used in addition to the imaging sensors of the system to determine when the user executes one of the predefined motions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Morin to use a secondary sensor to recognize predefined motions of the user to record the start time as taught by COX, as this would allow the system to have autonomous control during the exercise session and not require a third party such as a coach or trainer, to provide the inputs to signal the system when to start timing for each strike, and the user can interact solely with the preprogrammed exercises.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of the record has not been relied upon but has been found to be pertinent to the content of the applicants disclosure:
Moran et al. US 11198050 B1: Speed Tracker, which teaches a device for measuring and displaying the speed, force, rate and/or frequency that an object or a body part strikes a target, including an impact sensor, transmitter, computer and display.
Jones US 20210178241 A1: Smart Bag, which teaches a smart bag system for martial arts practice, boxing, punching, kicking, and other physical sports and workouts. The smart bag system provides a user with various exercise challenge levels by illuminating devices on the bag at pre-determined time intervals and durations for the user to throw punches and/or kicks at. Further, the smart bag system includes a control system and a plurality of sensors to turn off the illuminating devices upon impact and provide various exercise measurement data to the user through wireless communication.
Burt US 20150360110 A1: Training Aid for Boxing, which teaches a boxing trainer comprising: a housing comprising a plurality of targets, wherein each target comprises: a target pad and at least one light operable to illuminate the target pad; and a controller comprising a plurality of target commands each linked to the light of one of the targets such that activating one of the target commands activates one of the lights.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ANGELO DICUIA whose telephone number is (703)756-4713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/JONATHAN A DICUIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784