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 .
Election/Restrictions
An election of species requirement was sent 06/26/2026. Affirmation of this election was made by applicant in replying to this Office action on 08/26/2026 electing species I, a system with physical projectile(s) and physical target(s) without traverse. In view of this election, claims 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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)(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) 1-10 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vollbrecht et al. [US11247108], hereinafter Vollbrecht.
Regarding claim 1, Vollbrecht discloses a system comprising: one or more user interface(s); one or more target(s); one or more projectile(s) (col. 2, lines 6 – 9, “ The system includes a field of play extending from a plurality of bays, with one or more moving objects launched from one or more of the bays and one or more moving targets configured to traverse the field of play”); and one or more control console(s), which is internal to or external to the user interface (col. 2, lines 34 – 36, “the movement of the moving targets can be controlled with a movement computer, the tracking computer or both”).
Regarding claim 2, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more microprocessor(s) configured to: control movement of the one or more target(s); and detect an impact on the one or more target(s) by the one or more projectile (col. 2, lines 34 – 36, “the movement of the moving targets can be controlled with a movement computer, the tracking computer or both” and col. 4, lines 59 – 66, “As illustrated in FIG. 5, if the moving object or golf ball and the moving target or golf cart occupy the same X, Y, Z coordinate positions, the inventive system and process will determine that the user was successful in hitting the moving golf cart. The inventive system determines a successful hit of the golf ball on the golf cart by the tracking computer determining the coordinate positions of the golf ball and the golf cart”).
Regarding claim 3, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more microprocessor(s) configured to: determine the one or more target(s)'s target status according to a preprogrammed route based on one or more of i) a time of the impact on the one or more target(s) by the one or more projectile, ii) a location of the one or more target(s) at impact, and/or iii) one or more distance between a reference line/location and a location of the one or more target(s) at impact (col. 4, line 66 – col. 5, line 10, “FIG. 5 shows a tracking timeline 100, with time proceeding forward as the timeline moves from left to right. The timeline 100 begins at the shot event start 112, wherein the golf ball enters the field of play and the tracking computer or server records the time 132 and sensors begin to track the coordinate position of the golf ball. The top row 110 shows inventive system tracking not only position of the golf ball but also the trajectory of the golf ball and the time. These ball values 114 are continually tracked. The bottom row 120 shows the inventive system tracking the golf cart position, direction and speed. These cart values 122 are also continually tracked”).
Regarding claim 4, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more target(s): i) keeps track of its current location during travel; ii) at the time of impact by the projectile, computes its coordinates or its distance from a reference line/location; and iii) sends the distance and/or the coordinates to the one or more user interface (col. 4, lines 59 – 66, “As illustrated in FIG. 5, if the moving object or golf ball and the moving target or golf cart occupy the same X, Y, Z coordinate positions, the inventive system and process will determine that the user was successful in hitting the moving golf cart. The inventive system determines a successful hit of the golf ball on the golf cart by the tracking computer determining the coordinate positions of the golf ball and the golf cart” and col. 6, lines 12 – 15, “The tracked coordinate positions of the moving targets, stationary targets, and moving objects may be continually displayed to users on monitors which are installed in the bays”).
Regarding claim 5, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more target(s): i) updates its target status during travel; and ii) upon being hit by the one or more projectile, sends the target status to the one or more user interface and/or the one or more control console (col. 4, lines 37 – 41, “By way of example, FIG. 2 shows a moving target or golf cart 12 on a field of play 34 extending from a multi-level, multi-bay golf range facility 13 where a GPS tracking system is used to detect the coordinate positions of the golf cart 12 on the field of play 34.” and col. 6, lines 12 – 15, “The tracked coordinate positions of the moving targets, stationary targets, and moving objects may be continually displayed to users on monitors which are installed in the bays”).
Regarding claim 6, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the one or more control console is further configured to award and/or calculate points relating to a time, location, or distance at the time of impact (col. 5, lines 29 – 30, “The notification may award points or other rewards to a user in the bay for the collision”).
Regarding claim 7, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more user interface comprises one or more user platform(s) comprising one or more sensors configured to detect presence and/or location(s) of one or more user(s) on the one or more platform(s) (col. 1, lines 37 – 45, “A modern, computerized driving range typically involves twenty (20) to one-hundred and two (102) stations, on a single or multiple levels, for users, enabling twenty (20) to one-hundred and two (102) users to hit the ball simultaneously into a physical range while a computer uses various methods of detection to determine the flight path of the ball, the landing point of the ball, and the final resting place of the ball to automatically and accurately score the game for each of the users”).
Regarding claim 8, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more user interface comprises one or more visual indicator(s) and/or one or more electronic screen(s) (col. 5, lines 26 – 32, “One such notification of the collision to a registered system could be to the monitor in the bay where the golf ball was launched. The notification may award points or other rewards to a user in the bay for the collision. The computers and monitors may also be used for user interaction with the game system”).
Regarding claim 9, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more sensors configured to detect that one or more user(s) has thrown the one or more projectile (col. 3, line 63 – col. 4, line 10, “During game play, at least one player will attempt to hit a moving target with a moving object, namely each player will throw or use a golf club to hit a golf ball attempting to make it collide with a moving golf ball collection cart in a driving range field. While illustrated and exemplified in connection with golf, it will be understood that the system and process can be adapted to a variety of rules, games, formats, sports, activities, etc. For example, in some embodiments, the moving targets may be flying drones and/or the inventive system may incorporate moving targets and stationary targets or only stationary targets. The coordinate positions (X, Y, Z) of the moving object or golf ball will be detected by one or more sensors and reported to a tracking computer with a time stamp for each detected golf ball”).
Regarding claim 10, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control console and/or the one or more user interface is further configured to interact with one or more user(s) by prompting the one or more user(s) to select one or more game play option (col. 6, lines 23 – 29, “The monitors in the bays could also be used to allow users to interact with the game system. Interaction could include examples such as selecting a specific moving target, changing the movement speed of moving targets, controlling a specific moving target. Other means of interaction with the game systems through a monitor and computer will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art”).
Regarding claim 25, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) for the one or more target(s) to serve as the starting and/or ending location of one or more plays (lines 63 – 66, “it should be understood that the moving targets 12 can become stationary targets 20 as well by stopping their movement about the field of play 34”).
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) 11, 12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbrecht, in view of Peterson et al. [US11904226], hereinafter Peterson.
Regarding claim 11, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more target(s) each comprise one or more batteries, electronics, electromechanics (col. 2, lines 21 – 24, “The method includes the steps of: electronically detecting with one or more target sensors coordinate positions of one or more moving targets traversing a field of play”). However, Vollbrecht does not explicitly disclose one or more visual mark identifying for one or more user where to hit the one or more target(s) with the one or more projectile.
Nevertheless, Peterson teaches in a like invention, one or more visual mark identifying for one or more user where to hit the one or more target(s) with the one or more projectile (col. 1, lines 38 – 41, “The glowing targets are hollow structures made of a transparent or translucent skin, with light shining through, from the interior to the exterior of the skin, causing the skin to glow” and lines 50 – 53, “The open field game arrangement may include a scoring system, which may be manually operated or automatic, creating scores when the glowing targets are hit by the players”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by Vollbrecht, to have the one or more visual mark identifying for one or more user where to hit the one or more target(s) with the one or more projectile, as taught by Peterson, in order to help the user to aim at the target for better chance of hitting the target.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Vollbrecht and Peterson discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more target(s) comprises one or more motor driver(s) with adjustable signal(s) and is configured to travel pre-programmed route(s) at fixed or variable speed(s) (Vollbrecht, col. 5, lines 54 – 56, “The movement paths and movement speeds of the moving targets 12 may be changed to account for varying user skill.” And col. 6, lines 24 – 27, “Interaction could include examples such as selecting a specific moving target, changing the movement speed of moving targets, controlling a specific moving target.”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Vollbrecht and Peterson discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more target(s) is configured to change its shape or size in response to physical manipulation by the one or more user or through programmed motion of one or more internal pieces (Peterson, col. 5, lines 7 – 10, “The skin 26B is inflated by air. The skin 26B is made of a foldable cloth, plastic or other material that does not hold its own shape, so, in this case, it uses air pressure to keep it in a desired shape”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Vollbrecht and Peterson discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more target(s) comprises one or more sensor(s) to detect one or more hits and/or location of the one or more hits by the one or more projectile (col. 5, lines 43 – 44, “The sensor 34 senses when the skin 26B has been hit.”)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Vollbrecht and Peterson discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more sensor(s) are chosen from resistive, capacitive, IR, proximity, acceleration, shock, and/or vibration sensors (col. 5, lines 44 – 50, “The sensor 34 may include one or more microphones that sense the sound waves created by the vibration of the skin 26B when the skin 20 is hit. The sensor 34 alternatively, or in addition, may include one or more piezo-electric sensors connected to the skin 26B to detect vibration of the skin 26B when the skin 26B is hit”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbrecht, in view of Peterson, further in view of SCHLICHTENBREDE [DE202021104611].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Vollbrecht and Peterson discloses the system of claim 11. However, the combination of Vollbrecht and Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein a main body of a target of the one or more target(s) comprises one or more collision sensor(s) to detect a possible collision, wherein the one or more collision sensor(s) is in operable communication with an MCU configured to update the travel of one or more motor driver(s) of one or more of the one or more target(s) to avoid collision.
Nevertheless, SCHLICHTENBREDE teaches in a like invention, wherein a main body of a target of the one or more target(s) comprises one or more collision sensor(s) to detect a possible collision, wherein the one or more collision sensor(s) is in operable communication with an MCU configured to update the travel of one or more motor driver(s) of one or more of the one or more target(s) to avoid collision ([0027], “To avoid collisions with obstacles, the mobile training device may have corresponding sensors and be designed to navigate around obstacles”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by the combination of Vollbrecht and Peterson, to have one or more collision sensor(s) to avoid collision, as taught by SCHLICHTENBREDE , in order to help the user to improve the skills even more.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 19 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbrecht, in view of Buscemi [US20200406118].
Regarding claim 14, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1. However, Vollbrecht does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more target(s) comprises one or more sensor(s) for navigation of the one or more target(s).
Nevertheless, Buscemi teaches in a like invention, wherein the one or more target(s) comprises one or more sensor(s) for navigation of the one or more target(s) ([0050], “Navigation routine 306 uses information from GPS receiver 230, DGPS receiver 232, IMU 233, laser range finding sensors 226, 228, as well as stored golf map range information 340 to determine a route from the present location of the gofer 200 to a desired location, e.g., a position of a detected ball of interest on the field, or the position of a docking station or a repair facility”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by Vollbrecht, to have the one or more sensor(s) for navigation of the one or more target(s), as taught by Buscemi, in order to make the targets smarter navigating through the play field.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Vollbrecht and Buscemi discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more sensor(s) is an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Buscemi, [0050], “Navigation routine 306 uses information from GPS receiver 230, DGPS receiver 232, IMU 233, laser range finding sensors 226, 228, as well as stored golf map range information 340 to determine a route from the present location of the gofer 200 to a desired location, e.g., a position of a detected ball of interest on the field, or the position of a docking station or a repair facility”).
Regarding claim 19, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more control console is further configured to command the one or more target(s) to move according to a selected play, command the one or more target(s) to stop (col. 6, lines 24 – 27, “Interaction could include examples such as selecting a specific moving target, changing the movement speed of moving targets, controlling a specific moving target.” col. 5, lines 54 – 56, “The movement paths and movement speeds of the moving targets 12 may be changed to account for varying user skill.” lines 63 – 66, “it should be understood that the moving targets 12 can become stationary targets 20 as well by stopping their movement about the field of play 34”).
However, Vollbrecht does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more control console is further configured to command the one or more target(s) to return to a starting position at any time before, during or after execution of the selected play.
Nevertheless, Buscemi teaches in a like invention, wherein the one or more control console is further configured to command the one or more target(s) to return to a starting position at any time before, during or after execution of the selected play ([0013], “the gofer can be commanded to return to the docking stations and/or autonomously decided to return”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by Vollbrecht, to have one or more control console configured to command the one or more target(s) to return to a starting position at any time, as taught by Buscemi, in order to make it convenient to maintain the target(s) as needed.
Regarding claim 26, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 25. However, Vollbrecht does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprises the ability to help provide precise returning to the starting position for the one or more target(s) with physical guidance and/or electrical guidance.
Nevertheless, Buscemi teaches in a like invention, wherein the one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprises the ability to help provide precise returning to the starting position for the one or more target(s) with physical guidance and/or electrical guidance ([0013], “the gofer can be commanded to return to the docking stations and/or autonomously decided to return”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by Vollbrecht, to have one or more control console configured to command the one or more target(s) to return to a starting position at any time, as taught by Buscemi, in order to make it convenient to maintain the target(s) as needed.
Regarding claim 27, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 25. However, Vollbrecht does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprises the ability to charge one or more batteries on the one or more target(s).
Nevertheless, Buscemi teaches in a like invention, wherein the one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprises the ability to charge one or more batteries on the one or more target(s) ([0013], “Gofers automatically return as need to a docking station where the balls they have collected are unloaded, e.g., automatically, and the gofer's batteries are recharged…the gofer can be commanded to return to the docking stations and/or autonomously decided to return”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by Vollbrecht, to have the one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprising the ability to charge one or more batteries on the one or more target(s), as taught by Buscemi, in order to make it convenient to charge the target(s) as needed.
Regarding claim 28, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 25. However, Vollbrecht does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprises the ability to determine and communicate if the one or more target(s) is docked.
Nevertheless, Buscemi teaches in a like invention, wherein the one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprises the ability to determine and communicate if the one or more target(s) is docked ([0073], “Mapping of currently docked devices 950 includes information identifying for each device (gofer or target), which is currently docked at docking station 800, device ID information, information identifying which docking port is being used, and information identifying the reason for docking, e.g. battery recharge or ball unloading”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by Vollbrecht, to have one or more stationary or mobile docking station(s) further comprising the ability to determine and communicate if the one or more target(s) is docked, as taught by Buscemi, in order to make it convenient to monitor the docking information of all the targets.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbrecht, in view of Cochran et al. [US12005334], hereinafter Cochran, further in view of Buscemi.
Regarding claim 20, Vollbrecht discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the one or more control console is configured to:
A. show a user one or more play(s) comprising one or more route wherein the one or more target(s) has an appropriate status; E. command the one or more target(s) to perform the desired play (col. 6, lines 24 – 27, “Interaction could include examples such as selecting a specific moving target, changing the movement speed of moving targets, controlling a specific moving target.”); F. determine when the desired or random play has ended; i. wherein upon impact of the one or more projectile on the one or more target(s) occurring before the play completion timer runs out, the desired or random play is ended; and/or ii. wherein upon impact of the one or more projectile on the one or more target(s) occurring while the one or more target(s)'s target status is appropriate, the desired or random play is ended and the user is awarded points based on one or more of i) a time of the impact on the one or more target(s) by the one or more projectile (col. 5, lines 33 – 36, “The server will continue to query the coordinate position of the golf ball and golf cart until a collision is imminent or a shot event end 116 wherein the golf ball movement stops within the field of play”), ii) a location of the one or more target(s) at impact, and/or iii) one or more distance between a reference line/location and a location of the one or more target(s) at impact; and/or iii. wherein upon the impact occurring while the one or more target(s)'s target status is inappropriate, the desired play is ended and no or fewer points are awarded to the user; and/or iv. wherein upon the play completion timer running out, the desired or random play is ended.
However, Vollbrecht does not explicitly disclose B. start a play selection timer for the user to select a desired play from the one or more play(s); C. begin the desired play or a random play when the play selection timer has run out; D. start a play completion timer; and G. return the one or more target(s) to a starting position.
Nevertheless, Cochran teaches a timer for begin the game when the timer has run out, and also a timer for play completion (col. 14, lines 54 – 57, “In an exemplary embodiment, the countdown timer from the moment the “Play Now” button is selected to the moment play begins is five to six (5-6) seconds to allow the user to get positioned in the middle of the array of cones 100” and col. 15, lines 8 – 11, “if the game hasn't ended as by an associated timer or clock running out (i.e., the answer to the question is “NO”), the user would continue to observe the cone indicator lights 56 again at step 184”).
And Buscemi teaches in a like invention, G. return the one or more target(s) to a starting position ([0013], “the gofer can be commanded to return to the docking stations and/or autonomously decided to return”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system disclosed by Vollbrecht, to have both game start and game play timers, as taught by Cochran, in order to have better control over the game flow; and to return the one or more target(s) to a starting position, as taught by Buscemi, in order to make it convenient to maintain the target(s) as needed.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Vollbrecht, Cochran and Buscemi discloses system of claim 20, wherein: the location of the one or more target(s) is determined by its own internal tracked location then the one or more target(s) sends its location at impact to the one or more control console or sends the distance between a reference line/location and a location of the one or more target(s) at impact to the one or more control console to calculate the location (Vollbrecht, col. 4, lines 37 – 53, “By way of example, FIG. 2 shows a moving target or golf cart 12 on a field of play 34 extending from a multi-level, multi-bay golf range facility 13 where a GPS tracking system is used to detect the coordinate positions of the golf cart 12 on the field of play 34. FIG. 2 shows the use of a GPS sensor 10 on the facility 13 and a GPS reader 9 positioned on the golf cart 12 that is moving about the field of play 34. FIG. 3 shows a golf cart 12 moving about the field of play 34 where a radar or LIDAR sensor 10 and an associated tracking antenna or system 11 is used to detect the coordinate positions of the golf cart 12 on the field of play 34. FIG. 4 shows a golf cart 12 on a field of play 34 where at least one optical sensor 10 is used to detect the coordinate positions of the golf cart 12 on the field of play 34. For each embodiment exemplified in FIGS. 2-4, each of the sensors 10 and/or the tracking system 11 is in communication with the tracking computer”); and/or the location of the one or more target(s) is determined by the one or more target(s) stopping and then finding its location using external references, and using that data to calculate its distance or report to the one or more control console; and/or the location of the one or more target(s) is determined by the one or more target(s) reporting its status, when the one or more target(s) status is unique in specific location(s) during its route traveled then the one or more control console uses that status location to look up the distance.
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