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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitation “wherein the driver-side fold-out and the passenger-side fold-out each comprise a front panel and a rear panel, each configured to fold upward from the lower extension panel” from claim 11 and “impact screen” from claims 13 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “impact screens 302” in [0041]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10, 13, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CASH et al. [US20220289324], hereinafter CASH.
Regarding claim 1, CASH discloses a sport simulation system (Figs. 1-17), comprising:
a box truck comprising a box (Figs. 1-3);
a driver-side fold-out configured to extend laterally from the box on a first side; and a passenger-side fold-out configured to extend laterally from the box on a second side opposite the first side (Fig. 12, [0025], “each side panel includes a horizontally hinged wall portion that may be unlocked from the remainder of the trailer box and laterally deployed to form a side platform”); wherein an interior of the box is configured as a sport simulator with a projection screen ([0030], “As the relative distances between the play area, launch monitor(s), radar sensor(s), projector and screen tend to be closely dictated by the particular simulation system selected, adjustment options are highly constrained”).
Regarding claim 3, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1, further comprising: a rear platform extending outward from a rear of the box, the rear platform accessible from a ground by way of stairs (Fig. 7, [0026], “at least a portion of the rear end panel includes a horizontally hinged rear ramp door that folds down to provide ready access to the trailer box interior” and [0109], “Additional details, such as the platform access stairs (52), the platform guardrail (56), the ceiling mounted winches (54), and slide-out side door step (62), are highlighted in the views of FIGS. 7-9”).
Regarding claim 7, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1, further comprising: a first projector coupled to an internal floor of the box, the first projector configured to project a first image onto the projection screen ([0087], “By securing the projectors within dedicated subfloor housing, the present inventors are able to minimize any disturbance to focus and connectivity that may arise during trailer movement. In addition, by placing the projectors below the effective “floor”, the present inventors were able to optimize the dimensional configuration of the side bays while keeping the overall height of the trailer below the maximum dictated by most state and federal road regulations”).
Regarding claim 8, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 7, further comprising: a second projector coupled to an internal floor of the box, the second projector configured to project a second image onto a second projection screen in a direction opposite the projection of the first image onto the projection screen ([0088], “The present invention makes reference to a pair of projector screens, more particularly right and left golf simulator impact screens, mounted to each side of the partition wall”).
Regarding claim 9, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1, further comprising: a ball tracking device coupled to an internal ceiling of the box, the ball tracking device configured to detect a speed and an angle of a ball hit toward the projection screen ([0076], “In a preferred embodiment, the present invention utilizes systems developed by Fredrik Tuxen and assigned to TrackMan A/S, examples of which include U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,085,188 B2; 8,845,442 B2; 9,857,459 B2; 10,953,303 B2; and 10,989,791 B2 and U.S. Patent Publication Nos. 2007/0293331 A1; 2016/0048975; 2019/0282854; and 2021/0349202, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. Such systems are designed to monitor and record a wide range of club data (e.g., Club Speed, Attack Angle, Dynamic Loft, Club Path, Face Angle, Face to Path, Spin Loft, Swing Plane, Swing Direction, Low Point, Impact Height, Impact Offset, Dynamic Lie); ball data (e.g., Ball Speed, Smash Factor, Launch Angle, Spin Rate, Launch Direction, Spin Axis, Height, Curve, Landing Angle, Carry, Side, Total, Side Total); and putting data (Club Speed, Backswing Time, Stroke Length, Forward Swing Time, Tempo, Dynamic Lie, Launch Direction, Ball Speed, Skid Distance, Roll Speed, Speed Drop, Roll %, Effective Stimpmeter, Side, Break, Distance, Attack Angle, Club Path, Face Angle, Face to Path, Entry Speed Distance, Elevation, Slope %, Slope % Rise, Stimp (Flat)) and thus provide an experience as close to “real” golf as possible”).
Regarding claim 10, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1, wherein the driver-side fold-out and the passenger-side fold-out each comprise an upper extension panel and a lower extension panel, wherein the upper extension panel forms an extended ceiling for the box of box truck, and wherein the lower extension panel forms an extended floor for the box of the box truck (Fig. 12, [0105], “horizontally-hinged wall portions retained in their locked configuration by means of a series of compression bar locks that may be automatically controlled so as to enable smooth lateral deployment of such wall portions (“stage doors”) to form right and left side platforms (40)” and [0106], “right and left side sunshades”).
Regarding claim 13, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 10, further comprising: an impact screen positioned in front of or behind the projection screen ([0028], “The partition wall effectively bisects the trailer interior into respective left and right side bays and serves as the mounting point for first and second impact screens, with the former attached to the left side of the partition wall and the latter attached to the right side of the partition wall. Each side bay contains its own golf simulation unit operably networked to a computer system that, in turn, controls respective left and right side projectors”).
Regarding claim 14, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 13, wherein the impact screen and the projection screen are integrated with the upper extension panel and the lower extension panel ([0054], “The mobile golf simulation system of the present invention is uniquely designed to include a projection system installed beneath a floating floor that, along with right and left drop-down walls, allows for the creation of an open air platform from which a user may play a realistic form of virtual golf, hitting his ball into a built-in impact screen”).
Regarding claim 16, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1, wherein at least one internal wall of the box of the box truck has impact padding applied thereto ([0031], “In yet a further preferred embodiment, the pair of deployable side platforms are provided with a padded turf stage and tee area on the top surface and a series of adjustable stage legs on the bottom surface, further wherein, when laterally deployed, the side platforms are level with the aforementioned floating or false floor”).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASH, in view of Ramirez [US20210276632].
Regarding claim 2, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1. However, CASH does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising: a retractable canopy configured to extend outward from a rear of the box.
Nevertheless, Ramirez teaches a pickup truck comprising: a retractable canopy configured to extend outward from a rear of the box ([0007], “FIG. 1 schematically depicts a partial cross section of a rear view a pickup truck having a truck bed with a lid in a closed position and a retractable canopy assembly in a stored position, the retractable canopy assembly includes a lower leg, an extendable leg, a canopy, and a foldable leg, according to one or more embodiments described and illustrated herein”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by CASH, to have the retractable canopy configured to extend outward from a rear of the box, as taught by Ramirez, in order to provide shade to an adjacent area of the truck for a more comfortable and safer environment to play in the sport simulation system.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASH, in view of Groezinger [US6997495].
Regarding claim 4, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 3. However, CASH does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising: one or more bar tops coupled to the rear platform.
Nevertheless, Groezinger teaches in a like invention, the component of bar tops can be coupled to different locations on the floor extensions once unfolded (col. 8, lines 8-15, “While the railings 138 and platforms 140 are shown fixed in rigid relation to the floor extensions 120, they could instead be provided as separate components which are installable on (and removable from) the floor extensions 120 once unfolded; for example, picnic tables, or folding tables and chairs, could be stacked within the interior of the trailer 100, and these could be moved into their desired locations on the floor extensions 120 once unfolded”).
It appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the system of CASH to have one or more bar tops as claimed in claim 4, as it involves only adjusting the location of the components disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of CASH by coupling components of bar tops to the truck to achieve the bar tops as claimed in claim 4 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASH, in view of Yang et al. [US11124253], hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 5, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1. However, CASH does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising: a plurality of actuators extending downward from the box truck and configured to level or otherwise manipulate an angle of the box of the box truck.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches in a like invention, a plurality of actuators extending downward from the box truck and configured to level or otherwise manipulate an angle of the box of the box truck (col. 16, lines 19-22, “The system may adjust the leveling jacks to set the trailer floor to a desire angle (or degree offset from the ground plane) to a desired inclination or declination”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by CASH, to have the actuators extending downward from the box truck and configured to level or otherwise manipulate an angle of the box of the box truck, as taught by Yang, in order to mimic natural topography of a sport field.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of CASH and Yang discloses the sport simulation system of claim 5, further comprising: a smart hub configured to control operation of the plurality of actuators and further configured to control operation of the projection screen (Yang, col. 15, lines 22-26, “FIG. 9B shows an example interior view 940 of an internal portion(s) of the trailer 130 that may include a video screen projector 920, a video screen 922 (e.g., used as an impact screen for hitting golf balls against), lighting equipment(s) 924, 926, a user control(s) 928 and turf 932” and lines 41-47, “According to various embodiments, a dynamic adjustment of any component 920, 922, 924, 926, 928 may be the result of running one or more motors associated with one or more of the components 920, 922, 924, 926, 928 for a period of time and/or at a certain speed that corresponds to one or more attributes as described by FIG. 6”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASH, in view of TAKANORI et al. [JP2025002262], hereinafter TAKANORI.
Regarding claim 11, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 10. However, CASH does not explicitly disclose wherein the driver-side fold-out and the passenger-side fold-out each comprise a front panel and a rear panel, each configured to fold upward from the lower extension panel.
Nevertheless, TAKANORI teaches in a like invention, each side panel comprise a front panel and a rear panel, each configured to fold upward from the lower extension panel ([8], “FIG. 7 is an enlarged cross-sectional view of the portion (first hinge portion) connecting the first panel and the second panel of the first side wall portion of the folding booth shown in FIG. 6, showing the first side wall portion in the first position.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by CASH, to have each side panel comprise a front panel and a rear panel, as taught by TAKANORI, in order to provide the flexibility to fold/unfold different areas for different usages.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASH, in view of Factor et al. [US20230173971], hereinafter Factor.
Regarding claim 12, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1. However, CASH does not explicitly disclose wherein the box of the box truck comprises an upper box portion configured to extend upward to increase an internal height of the box.
Nevertheless, Factor teaches in a like invention, the box of the box truck comprises an upper box portion configured to extend upward to increase an internal height of the box (Fig. 1, “height-adjustable pull-up bar 125”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by CASH, to have the upper box portion configured to extend upward to increase an internal height of the box, as taught by Factor, in order to provide more space when needed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CASH, in view of XU et al. [CN103309328], hereinafter XU.
Regarding claim 15, CASH discloses the sport simulation system of claim 1. However, CASH does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising: a first projector coupled to an internal floor of the box, the first projector configured as a multi-layer projector configured to project a multi-layer image onto the projection screen.
Nevertheless, XU teaches in a like invention, a first projector coupled to an internal floor of the box, the first projector configured as a multi-layer projector configured to project a multi-layer image onto the projection screen (claim 1, “the distributed simulation system of the basketball sport is a cuboid structure; the cuboid structure is set on the left side of 6 degree of freedom motion simulation platform. 6-freedom motion simulation platform can rotate for 180 degrees, cuboid structure is provided with screen, the distributed motion simulation system is provided with multiple 6-freedom motion simulation platform, the multiple 6-freedom motion simulation platform to form a multi-layer array structure, The multilayer array structure of 6 degree of freedom motion simulation platform is set opposite the white spherical crown screen, spherical crown screen rigid aluminum structure is opaque or light material, the spherical crown screen external support structure is light, the screen surface is made matt aluminium plate, projector mounting freedom motion simulation platform array gap in multiple 6 projection method is positive, effect control system, blower is installed on the 6 degrees of freedom motion simulation platform, an air outlet is installed on the passenger seat head support top”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by CASH, to have the multi-layer projector configured to project a multi-layer image onto the projection screen, as taught by XU, in order to provide a more realistic display.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights