DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7-10, 13-14, 16, 18-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 includes limitations directed towards 2. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a first location of a player relative to the interactive ball system; determine a second location the interactive ball system is to move to based at least in part on the first location; and cause the interactive ball system to move to the second location using the at least one wheel; wherein the first ball is ejected towards the first target location after the interactive ball system is at the second location. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the determination of the first locations, second location and the specifics as defined in claim 2. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 2 is therefore allowed.
Claim 7 includes limitations directed towards 7. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the ball ejector is configured to rotate in a vertical direction relative to the housing. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the ball ejector rotating in a vertical direction relative to the housing. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 7 is therefore allowed.
Claim 8 includes limitations directed towards 8. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the interactive ball system is disposed on a first side of a tennis court, the interactive ball system further comprising: a base station disposed at or near a middle of the tennis court, wherein the base station is wirelessly connected to the controller; and a camera disposed in the base station; wherein the controller is configured to track movement of the player using the camera. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the disposition location, base station and its location, the wireless connectivity, camera and controller configured to track movements. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 8 is therefore allowed.
Claim 9 includes limitations directed towards 9. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the ball ejector is configured to rotate about a vertical axis of the interactive ball system. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the ball ejector is configured to rotate about a vertical axis of the interactive ball system. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 9 is therefore allowed.
Claim 10 includes limitations directed towards 10. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a session mode; and determine the first target location based at least in part on the session mode. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the session mode and determining the first target location based at least in part on the session mode. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 10 is therefore allowed.
Claim 13 includes limitations directed towards 13. The interactive ball system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a first location of a player relative to the interactive ball system; determine a second location the interactive ball system is to move to based at least in part on the first location; and cause the interactive ball system to move to the second location using the at least one wheel; wherein the first ball is ejected towards the first target location after the interactive ball system is at the second location. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the determination of the first locations, second location and the specifics as defined in claim 2. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 13 is therefore allowed.
Claim 16 includes limitations directed towards 16. The interactive ball system of claim 12, wherein at least a portion of the housing is configured to rotate about a vertical axis, and wherein the ball ejector is configured to rotate in a vertical direction relative to the housing. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the ball ejector rotating about a vertical axis and in a vertical direction relative to the housing. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 16 is therefore allowed.
Claim 18 includes limitations directed towards 18. The interactive ball system of claim 12, wherein the interactive ball system is disposed on a first side of a tennis court, the interactive ball system further comprising: a base station disposed at or near a middle of the tennis court, wherein the base station is wirelessly connected to the controller; and a camera disposed in the base station; wherein the controller is configured to track movement of the player using the camera. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the disposition location, base station and its location, the wireless connectivity, camera and controller configured to track movements. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 18 is therefore allowed.
Claim 19 includes limitations directed towards 19. The interactive ball system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a session mode; and determine the first target location based at least in part on the session mode. The closest art of record Yeager teaches the interactive ball system but is silent with regards to the session mode and determining the first target location based at least in part on the session mode. The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest the above-identified limitations, and claim 19 is therefore allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 19 both include limitations directed towards “a session mode” which the examiner cannot find support for in the specification as originally filed. As such, these limitations are considered new matter.
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 10 and 19 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 10 includes limitations directed towards "10. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a session mode; and determine the first target location based at least in part on the session mode." A review of the specification as originally filed does not show support for what is encompassed by a “session mode”. As such, the examiner cannot ascertain what the meets and bounds of a session mode is to properly examine the claims. Therefore, the examiner considers the claimed limitations to be indefinite.
Claim 19 includes limitations directed towards "19. The interactive ball system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a session mode; and determine the first target location based at least in part on the session mode." As such, the examiner cannot ascertain what the meets and bounds of a session mode is to properly examine the claims. Therefore, the examiner considers the claimed limitations to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 1, 4-6, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager (US 20140038751 A1) in view of JP '851 (JP H10127851 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yeager teaches 1. An interactive ball system comprising: a housing comprising a ball inlet; See Fig. 1 and 13, at least one wheel coupled to the housing; See Fig. 13; (72), an actuator configured to drive the at least one wheel; See [0091] which speaks of the drive motor., a ball container coupled to the ball inlet; See Fig. 2, a ball ejector configured to eject balls from the interactive ball system; and See Fig. 11.
JP '851 does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a controller configured to: determine a type of stroke a player is practicing; determine, using the type of stroke, a first target location for a first ball to be ejected from the interactive ball system; and cause the first ball to be ejected towards the first target location. The limitations only call for a controller configured to and not specifically a processor configured rendering the limitations functional language by nature. One can reference "First, the player proceeds to the main menu graphic 41 and selects from the general types of exercises displayed in the fields selected by the touch screen 37 where the desired selection appears. For example, when touching the drill selection field 42 on the screen 37 of the touch screen monitor 38, the player can select a stroke to practice through a shot selection screen (not shown). A drill selection graphic 45 appears when the forehand ground stroke is selected as the stroke to be practiced, and this graphic shows some further selections of a particular drill that allows the player to practice this particular shot. The thing is illustrated. If you want to change the drill, the ball machine 2" which clearly conveys the use of stroke selection for practice sessions. This functionality may easily be utilized with the controller as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Yeager with JP '851 to allow the user to practice a specific stroke during practice.
Regarding claim 4, Yeager teaches 4. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: detect obstacles using a camera. See [0098] which teaches the camera for landmarks or obstacles.
Regarding claim 5, Yeager teaches 5. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: autonomously navigate to a second location. See [0005].
Regarding claim 6, Yeager teaches 6. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the housing is configured to rotate about a vertical axis. See [0091] the drive wheels and the motion of the robot would allow the robot to rotate about a vertical axis.
Regarding claim 12, Yeager teaches 12. An interactive ball system comprising: a housing; See Fig. 1 and 13, a drive mechanism; See Fig. 13; (72); [0091+] which speaks of the drive motor., a ball container; See Fig. 2, a ball ejector configured to eject balls from the interactive ball system; and See Fig. 11.
JP '851 does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a controller configured to: determine a type of stroke a player is practicing; determine, using the type of stroke, a first target location for a first ball to be ejected from the interactive ball system; and cause the first ball to be ejected towards the first target location. The limitations only call for a controller configured to and not specifically a processor configured rendering the limitations functional language by nature. One can reference "First, the player proceeds to the main menu graphic 41 and selects from the general types of exercises displayed in the fields selected by the touch screen 37 where the desired selection appears. For example, when touching the drill selection field 42 on the screen 37 of the touch screen monitor 38, the player can select a stroke to practice through a shot selection screen (not shown). A drill selection graphic 45 appears when the forehand ground stroke is selected as the stroke to be practiced, and this graphic shows some further selections of a particular drill that allows the player to practice this particular shot. The thing is illustrated. If you want to change the drill, the ball machine 2" which clearly conveys the use of stroke selection for practice sessions. This functionality may easily be utilized with the controller as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Yeager with JP '851 to allow the user to practice a specific stroke during practice.
Regarding claim 15, Yeager teaches 15. The interactive ball system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to: autonomously navigate to a second location. See [0005].
Regarding claim 17, Yeager teaches 17. The interactive ball system of claim 12, wherein the drive mechanism is configured to move the interactive ball system in a lateral direction. See Fig. 13; (72); [0091+] which speaks of the drive motor which enables the drive mechanism to move in a lateral direction.
Regarding claim 20, Yeager teaches 20. An interactive ball system comprising: a housing; See Fig. 1 and 13, a drive mechanism; See Fig. 13; (72); [0091+] which speaks of the drive motor., a first camera; See [0098], a ball container; See Fig. 2, a ball ejector configured to eject balls from the interactive ball system; and See Fig. 11.
JP '851 does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a controller configured to: determine a type of stroke a player is practicing; determine, using the type of stroke, a first target location for a first ball to be ejected from the interactive ball system; and cause the first ball to be ejected towards the first target location. The limitations only call for a controller configured to and not specifically a processor configured rendering the limitations functional language by nature. One can reference "First, the player proceeds to the main menu graphic 41 and selects from the general types of exercises displayed in the fields selected by the touch screen 37 where the desired selection appears. For example, when touching the drill selection field 42 on the screen 37 of the touch screen monitor 38, the player can select a stroke to practice through a shot selection screen (not shown). A drill selection graphic 45 appears when the forehand ground stroke is selected as the stroke to be practiced, and this graphic shows some further selections of a particular drill that allows the player to practice this particular shot. The thing is illustrated. If you want to change the drill, the ball machine 2" which clearly conveys the use of stroke selection for practice sessions. This functionality may easily be utilized with the controller as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Yeager with JP '851 to allow the user to practice a specific stroke during practice.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeager (US 20140038751 A1) in view of JP '851 (JP H10127851 A) and Legg (US 20210128989 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Legg teaches 11. The interactive ball system of claim 1, wherein the interactive ball system is an autonomous interactive ball system configured to retrieve tennis balls autonomously. See [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Yeager with Legg to allow balls to be autonomously retrieved on the court in specific retrieval areas. (See [0041]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Refaeli US 20200298067 A1 - which teaches an autonomous ball collection robot.
Wang US 20210138311 A1 - which teaches a ball collection robot.
Sullivan US 20210038950 A1 - which teaches a tennis ball picking robot.
New US 11033780 B2 - which teaches an autonomous tennis ball collection robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights