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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 11/19/25.
Currently, claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to correct any 112, 2nd paragraph issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-12, 16-18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alexander Freytag et al. (DE102016013028, see IDS filed 4/17/25).
Re Claim 1,
Freytag discloses a method of determining a score of a dart in a play surface of a dartboard using a plurality of cameras facing the dartboard, wherein a direction of view of each of the plurality of cameras is at a non-zero angle relative to a plane containing the play surface of the dartboard (Fig 1, 2, 4, 10, ¶¶0001, 0038, 0075, 0077; the invention determines the position of arrow-like object relative to surface used cameras placed at different angles), the method comprising:
calculating a homography matrix for each camera within the plurality of cameras, the homography matrix being for transforming an image of the dartboard captured by the respective camera from a view of the respective camera to a front-view of the dartboard (¶¶0060-0061; the projective transformations are calculated with the aid of the camera such that after the inversion of the projective transformation, the plane of the dartboard imaged as an ellipse is circular);
capturing a first image of the dartboard using each of the cameras at a first time, and capturing a second image of the dartboard using each of the plurality of cameras at a second time, the second time being subsequent to the first time, and the dart being in the play surface of the dartboard at the second time (¶¶0044, 0049; the trigger detects dart arrow encountered on dartboard when a number of detected foreground pixels are exceeded. Further, images are taken continuously and a difference image between each two successive images is calculated);
producing a plurality of differential scoring images by comparing each first image to the second image captured by the respective camera; using at least two of the differential scoring images with their respective homography matrices to determine a location of intersection between the dart and the play surface of the dartboard; and determining a score based on the determined location of intersection(¶¶0044, 0049-0050, 0067-0068; images are taken continuously and a difference image between each two successive images is calculated, the difference images obtained are used for determining the orientation parameters of the dart arrow. By section of the dartboard level with the 3D line of the dart arrow, the hit point on the dartboard is determined and converted into corresponding playing points on the dartboard).
Re Claim 2,
Freytag discloses the directions of view of two adjacent cameras of the plurality of cameras are positioned at approximately 90 degrees to one another (Fig 2, 10, ¶0090).
Re Claims 3, 17,
Freytag discloses illuminating the play surface of the dartboard using an illumination device (¶0077).
Re Claim 4,
Freytag discloses each homography matrix is calculated based on a reference image captured by the respective camera, the reference image being an image of the dartboard without any dart present (¶¶0084-0085, 0093).
Re Claim 5,
Freytag discloses each homography matrix is calculated based on a plurality of reference points identified in the respective reference image, the reference points corresponding to a plurality of predetermined locations on the dartboard (¶¶0084-0085, 0093).
Re Claim 6,
Freytag discloses reference points of the plurality of reference points are identified by computer-based image analysis of the respective reference image (¶¶0084-0085, 0093).
Re Claim 7,
Freytag discloses adjusting at least one of the homography matrices based on input from a user (¶¶0094, 0097-0098).
Re Claim 10,
Freytag discloses producing a plurality of contour images of the dart based on the plurality of differential scoring images (¶¶0103-0105).
Re Claim 11,
Freytag discloses using the differential scoring images with their respective homography matrix to determine a location of the dart point on the dartboard (¶¶0044, 0049-0050, 0067-0068).
Re Claim 12,
Freytag discloses using the at least two differential scoring images with their respective homography matrix to map a main axis of the dart in each differential scoring image onto the front-view of the dartboard; determining at least one location of intersection between the main axes of the darts in each differential scoring image, when mapped onto the front-view of the dartboard; and determining the location of intersection between the dart and the play surface of the dartboard as the at least one location of intersection between the main axes of the darts in each differential scoring image, when mapped onto the front-view of the dartboard (¶¶0031, 0033, 0044, 0049-0050).
Re Claim 16,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and includes a plurality of cameras and a controller (Fig 1, 2, 4, 10, ¶¶0001, 0038, 0075, 0077). See claim 1 for rejection on limitations.
Re Claim 19,
Claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and includes assigning each pixel within the view of each camera a score value using the respective homography matrix for the camera (¶¶0044-0046, 0049-0050, 0067-0068). See claim 1 for rejection on other limitations.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander Freytag et al. (DE102016013028, see IDS filed 4/17/25) in view of Chung (2020/0038743).
Re Claim 10,
Freytag discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of contour images of the dart. However, Chung teaches a plurality of contour images of the dart (¶0132). Chung further teaches such a configuration makes the game more exciting and entertaining to spectators and players (¶0132). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Chung into the dart system of Freytag in order to make the game more exciting and entertaining to spectators and players.
Claim(s) 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander Freytag et al. (DE102016013028, see IDS filed 4/17/25) in view of Cross et al. (2012/0083342).
Re Claims 15, 18,
Freytag discloses all limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose displaying a score on a screen. However, Cross teaches displaying a score on a screen (¶0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Cross into the dart system of Freytag in order to make the game more entertaining by displaying the score to the player.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re 102 & 103 Rejections,
Applicant argues that Freytag fails to disclose “using at least two of the differential scoring images with their respective homography matrices to determine a location of intersection between the dart and the play surface of the dartboard” in claim 1 and “assigning each pixel within the view of each camera a score value using the respective homography matrix for the camera; identifying the pixel location of the dart point in each differential scoring image; and determining a score based on the pixel locations of the dart point and their respective assigned score value” in claim 19. Specifically, Applicant argues that using a homography matrix involves directly converting from one 2D image of a plane to another 2D image of the plane from a different perspective. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., defining the usage of a homography matrix involves directly converting from one 2D image of a plane to another 2D image of the plane from a different perspective) are not recited in the rejected independent claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
At best, claim 1 and 19 describe using a homography matrix for the camera to determine the dart location on the play surface of the dartboard. As such, Freytag teaches, as illustrated in Fig. 1-8 and paragraphs 0044, 0049-0050, 0060-0061, 0067-0068, using cameras capture images from different angles, then transforming the plane of the dartboard from an ellipse to circular, i.e., homography image capturing. Further, Freytag teaches determining the 2D images of dart based on the different images captured by cameras such that the trigger for detecting a dart on the dartboard is a number of detected foreground pixels is exceeded. The distance between two pixels can be calculated as a difference in gray value or the distance between two color points, i.e., assign a pixel value. Moreover, the 2D line can be put into a 3D context and the fusion of all camera views can be performed. By intersecting the dartboard plane with the 3D line primitive of dart , Freytag teaches that it is possible to determine the exact hit point on dartboard and convert it into corresponding game points or hit areas on dartboard. Therefore, for the reasons as set forth above, the rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715