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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 14, “a beanbag” should read “the beanbag”.
Claim 1, line 18, “the one or more processors” should read “the one or more base processors”.
Claim 1, line 25, “the team” should read “a team”.
Claim 8, line 7, “a team score” should read “the team score”.
Claim 9, line 4, “the a second cornhole game board” should read “a second cornhole game board”.
Claim 14, line 2, “a remote control” should read “the remote control”.
Claim 16, line 2, “an platform” should read “a platform”.
Claim 16, line 9, “a beanbag” should read “the beanbag”.
Claim 16, line 13, “the one or more processors” should read “the one or more base processors”.
Claim 16, line 20, “the team” should read “a team”.
Claims 4 and 19 are objected to because the use of conjunctions “and/or,” makes it unclear whether both terms are to be considered or if only one of them is to be considered. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret the terms in the alternative only.
Claim 20, line 27, “a beanbag” should read “the beanbag”.
Claim 20, line 36, “the one or more processors” should read “the one or more base processors”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation “a signal” in line 28. Since the claim language does not use antecedent basis (e.g. “the” or “said”), it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “a signal from the one or more base processors” or “a signal from the IR sensor” or “a signal from the vibrator sensor” or a new signal. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “a signal” refers to “a new signal”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a signal” in line 13. Since the claim language does not use antecedent basis (e.g. “the” or “said”), it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “a signal from the one or more base processors” or “a signal from the IR sensor” or “a signal from the vibrator sensor” of claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, or a new signal. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “a signal” refers to “a new signal”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a signal” in line 23. Since the claim language does not use antecedent basis (e.g. “the” or “said”), it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “a signal from the one or more base processors” or “a signal from the IR sensor” or “a signal from the vibrator sensor” or a new signal. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “a signal” refers to “a new signal”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a signal” in line 13. Since the claim language does not use antecedent basis (e.g. “the” or “said”), it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “a signal from the one or more base processors” or “a signal from the IR sensor” or “a signal from the vibrator sensor” of claim 16 from which claim 17 depends or a new signal. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “a signal” refers to “a new signal”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a signal” in lines 40 and 48. Since the claim language does not use antecedent basis (e.g. “the” or “said”), it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “a signal from the one or more base processors” or “a signal from the IR sensor” or “a signal from the vibrator sensor” or a new signal. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that these two instances of “a signal” refers to “a new signal”.
Claim 3-15, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12364917 in view of Behroozian et al. (Automatic Score Tracking Cornhole Game; hereinafter Behroozian). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of at least the reasons below. Furthermore, both an infrared sensor and a vibration sensor are types of sensors used to detect a beanbag passing through an aperture or a beanbag impacting the platform of the cornhole game.
Pending US Application 18/922,049
U.S. Patent No.
12364917
Claim 1: A cornhole game board, comprising: a pair of panels pivotally coupled together at a hinge and folding about the hinge between: an open play orientation with the pair of panels folded apart from one another to form an inclined platform; and a closed storage orientation with the pair of panels folded together; a rear leg pivotally coupled to one of the pair of panels; an aperture in one of the pair of panels; a display carried by one of the pair of panels and configured to display at least one score; an infrared (IR) sensor positioned proximate to the aperture and configured to sense a beanbag passing through the aperture; a vibration sensor coupled to one of the pair of panels and configured to sense a beanbag impacting the inclined platform; an indicator light carried by one of the pair of panels configured to indicate a team turn; and one or more base processors electrically coupled to the display, the IR sensor, the vibration sensor and the indicator light, the one or more processors configured to: send a signal to the indicator light to enable an indication of the team turn; receive a signal from the IR sensor indicating a hole score for the team turn; receive a signal from the vibration sensor indicating a board score for the team; determine a team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and the team turn; and send a signal to the display to enable display of the team score.
Prior Art: IR sensor used to sense a beanbag (improvements can be made by adding a PIR sensor near the hole to detect if a team made a sink; Page 33 - 6.3.1) and vibration sensor used to sense beanbag impact (triple-axis accelerometer is a vibration sensor used as method for detecting beanbags hitting the case; Page 13 - Table IX).
Claim 13: The cornhole game board of claim 1, further comprising: the platform comprising a pair of panels pivotally coupled together at a hinge and folding about the hinge between: an open play orientation with the pair of panels folded apart from one another to form the platform; and a closed storage orientation with the pair of panels folded together.
Claim 1: A cornhole game board, comprising: a platform configured to receive a beanbag thereon; an aperture in the platform configured to receive the beanbag therethrough; a display carried by the platform and configured to display at least one score; an aperture sensor positioned proximate to the aperture and configured to sense a beanbag passing through the aperture; a platform sensor coupled to the platform and configured to sense the beanbag impacting the platform; an indicator light carried by the platform and configured to indicate a team turn; and one or more processors electrically coupled to the display, the aperture sensor, the platform sensor and the indicator light, the one or more processors configured to: send a signal to the indicator light to enable an indication of the team turn; receive a signal from the aperture sensor indicating a hole score for the team turn; receive a signal from the platform sensor indicating a board score for the team; determine a team score based on signals from the aperture sensor and the platform sensor and the team turn; and send a signal to the display to enable display of the team score
Claim 16: A cornhole game board, comprising: an platform; an aperture in the platform; a display carried by the platform and configured to display at least one score; an infrared (IR) sensor positioned proximate to the aperture and configured to sense a beanbag passing through the aperture; a vibration sensor coupled to the platform and configured to sense a beanbag impacting the platform; an indicator light carried by the platform and configured to indicate a team turn; one or more base processors electrically coupled to the display, the IR sensor, the vibration sensor and the indicator light, the one or more processors configured to: send a signal to the indicator light to enable an indication of the team turn; receive a signal from the IR sensor indicating a hole score for the team turn; receive a signal from the vibration sensor indicating a board score for the team; determine a team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and the team turn; and send a signal to the display to enable display of the team score.
Claim 1: A cornhole game board, comprising: a platform configured to receive a beanbag thereon; an aperture in the platform configured to receive the beanbag therethrough; a display carried by the platform and configured to display at least one score; an aperture sensor positioned proximate to the aperture and configured to sense a beanbag passing through the aperture; a platform sensor coupled to the platform and configured to sense the beanbag impacting the platform; an indicator light carried by the platform and configured to indicate a team turn; and one or more processors electrically coupled to the display, the aperture sensor, the platform sensor and the indicator light, the one or more processors configured to: send a signal to the indicator light to enable an indication of the team turn; receive a signal from the aperture sensor indicating a hole score for the team turn; receive a signal from the platform sensor indicating a board score for the team; determine a team score based on signals from the aperture sensor and the platform sensor and the team turn; and send a signal to the display to enable display of the team score.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrarca et al. (US 20220280851 A1; hereinafter Petrarca) in view of Behroozian et al. (Automatic Score Tracking Cornhole Game; hereinafter Behroozian) in view of The Cornhole Board Scoreboard as evidenced by "The Cornhole Board is the Scoreboard" (hereinafter Scoreboard).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Petrarca discloses a cornhole game board (invention related to cornhole game; ¶2), comprising: a pair of panels (half boards 12a and 12b; Fig 1) pivotally coupled together at a hinge and folding about the hinge (the two boards are hingedly connected and folded at the hinge; abstract) between: an open play orientation with the pair of panels folded apart from one another to form an inclined platform (during gameplay the two boards form an inclined position; Fig 11 and ¶68); and a closed storage orientation with the pair of panels folded together (foldable portable mode shown in Fig 9 and ¶60); a rear leg pivotally coupled to one of the pair of panels (leg 18a shown in Fig 7); an aperture in one of the pair of panels (hole 14; Fig 3).
Petrarca does not disclose a display carried by one of the pair of panels and configured to display at least one score; an infrared (IR) sensor positioned proximate to the aperture and configured to sense a beanbag passing through the aperture; a vibration sensor coupled to one of the pair of panels and configured to sense a beanbag impacting the inclined platform; an indicator light carried by one of the pair of panels configured to indicate a team turn; and one or more base processors electrically coupled to the display, the IR sensor, the vibration sensor and the indicator light, the one or more processors configured to: send a signal to the indicator light to enable an indication of the team turn; receive a signal from the IR sensor indicating a hole score for the team turn; receive a signal from the vibration sensor indicating a board score for the team; determine a team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and the team turn; and send a signal to the display to enable display of the team score.
However, Behroozian teaches an infrared (IR) sensor positioned proximate to the aperture and configured to sense a beanbag passing through the aperture (improvements can be made by adding a PIR sensor near the hole to detect if a team made a sink; Page 33 - 6.3.1); a vibration sensor coupled to one of the pair of panels and configured to sense a beanbag impacting the inclined platform (triple-axis accelerometer is a vibration sensor used as method for detecting beanbags hitting the case; Page 13 - Table IX); and one or more base processors electrically coupled to the display, the IR sensor, the vibration sensor and the indicator light (The CYBT-213043-Mesh Kit is also an eval kit acting as a microcontroller in Page 16 and coupled to many components such as sensors, RGB LEDs, and a user switch in Page 17), the one or more processors configured to: send a signal to the indicator light to enable an indication of the team turn; receive a signal from the IR sensor indicating a hole score for the team turn (PIR sensor near the hole to detect if a team made a sink; Page 33 - 6.3.1; Fig 4 and ¶26); receive a signal from the vibration sensor indicating a board score for the team (accelerometer detects if case was hit; Page 13 - Table IX); determine a team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and the team turn (both the accelerometer and the PIR sensor are used to detect scores as shown in Page 13 - Table IX and Page 33 - 6.3.1 and will naturally need to send signals in order for the display to show the scores in Page 18 - 3.3.1); and send a signal to the display to enable display of the team score (LCD display will display both team scores; Page 18 - 3.3.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Behroozian for the benefit of automating the scoring so that each team doesn’t have to keep track of it. The sensors will be able to detect the beanbags passing through the hole and the beanbags impacting the cornhole board in order to calculate the scores for each team.
Scoreboard teaches a display carried by one of the pair of panels (the center of the board acts a display; 6:03-6:07) and configured to display at least one score (6:03-6:07); an indicator light carried by one of the pair of panels configured to indicate a team turn (lights can be modified by color to indicate the turn of red or blue team; 6:03-6:07).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Scoreboard for the benefit of displaying the score to each team so that they know the automatic calculation of the scores. With the sensors detecting the beanbags passing through the hole and the beanbags impacting the cornhole board to calculate the scores for each team, a display is necessary in order to show the scores calculated.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Petrarca does not disclose a pair of buttons carried by one of the panels and positioned proximate the display; the pair of buttons comprising an increase button with an increase indicator and a decrease button with a decrease indicator; the one or more base processors electrically coupled to the pair of buttons and further configured to: add a point to the team score displayed on the display based on a signal from the increase button and/or subtract a point from the team score displayed on the display based on a signal from the decrease button.
However, Scoreboard teaches a pair of buttons carried by one of the panels and positioned proximate the display (design shows buttons proximate to the display; 7:20 - 7:23); the pair of buttons comprising an increase button with an increase indicator and a decrease button with a decrease indicator (add and decrease buttons; 7:20 - 7:23); the one or more base processors electrically coupled to the pair of buttons (Arduino board has processors and is connected to these components; 7:20 - 7:23) and further configured to: add a point to the team score displayed on the display based on a signal from the increase button and/or subtract a point from the team score displayed on the display based on a signal from the decrease button (add points by pressing buttons; 6:02 - 6:10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Scoreboard for the benefit of giving manual control to the user. By giving a user manual control over the scoring, it will help users to modify the score if the system makes a mistake in calculating the score.
Regarding claim 5, Petrarca does not disclose the indicator light comprising an indicator light strip extending across the inclined platform and comprising a first segment carried by a first panel of the pair of panels and a second segment electrically coupled to the first segment and carried by a second panel of the pair of panels.
However, Scoreboard teaches the indicator light comprising an indicator light strip extending across the inclined platform (LEDs in the platform are extending across the inclined platform; 6:03-6:07) and comprising a first segment carried by a first panel of the pair of panels and a second segment electrically coupled to the first segment and carried by a second panel of the pair of panels (here all the LEDs are electrically coupled and they are carried across the whole platform; 6:03-6:07).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Scoreboard for the benefit of displaying a bigger area with the light indicator. By having the lights across the whole platform, it will much easier to see for users far away from the board.
Regarding claim 6, Petrarca discloses a U-shaped member selectively coupled to the pair of panels in two different positions (handle 40 is coupled to the pair of half boards; ¶60 and Fig 9), including: a handle position extending from the pair of panels in the closed storage orientation to enable carrying the pair of panels by the U-shaped member (handle 40 has the shape of U and shown in Fig 9 in a close orientation); and a leg position extending from an intermediate location of the inclined platform in the open play orientation to enable support of the intermediate location of the inclined platform by the U-shaped member (leg position in the middle of the inclined platform to enable support as shown in Fig 11).
Regarding claim 7, Petrarca does not disclose a memory coupled to the one or more processors to enable storing multiple rounds of scores.
However, Behroozian teaches a memory coupled to the one or more processors to enable storing multiple rounds of scores (Arduino or CYBT-213043-Mesh inherently includes both a processor and built-in memory; Page 32 - 6.1 or Page 5 – Chapter 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Behroozian because a processor and memory are necessary in order to receive data, process data to calculate scoring, and store data related to the scores.
Regarding claim 8, Petrarca does not disclose a transceiver coupled to the one or more base processors to enable wireless pairing and communication with another transceiver of another cornhole game board; wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit one or more of: the team score, the team turn, the hole score, or the board score; wherein the transceiver is configured to receive one or more of: a team score, the team turn, the hole score, or the board score.
However, Behroozian teaches a transceiver coupled to the one or more base processors (Bluetooth Low Energy Mesh inherently uses a transceiver; Page 16) to enable wireless pairing and communication with another transceiver of another cornhole game board (two game boards able to communicate with each other; Page 5 - Chapter 1); wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit one or more of: the team score, the team turn, the hole score, or the board score (communicates scores for each team per round; Page 5 - Chapter 1); wherein the transceiver is configured to receive one or more of: a team score, the team turn, the hole score, or the board score (transceiver will naturally receive scores if boards are communicating the scores; Page 5 - Chapter 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Behroozian for the benefit of automating scoring for two cornhole boards at the same time. With this design there will be two cornhole boards facing each other and communicating with each other in order to calculate scores for each team properly.
Regarding claim 13, Petrarca does not disclose a base transceiver coupled to the one or more base processors to enable wireless pairing and communication with a remote transceiver of a remote control.
However, Behroozian teaches a base transceiver coupled to the one or more base processors to enable wireless pairing and communication (Bluetooth Low Energy Mesh inherently uses a transceiver in Page 16 and wireless communication implemented in Page 5 - abstract) with a remote transceiver of a remote control (wireless communication with a phone that has an app, with capabilities to control aspects of the game, such as correcting any mistakes from the scores; Page 10 - Table V and Table VII).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Behroozian for the benefit of wirelessly controlling the cornhole board. This allows the user to modify the score or other aspects of the cornhole game from far away so that he doesn’t have to approach and do it manually.
Claims 2, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrarca in view of Behroozian in view of Scoreboard as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Automated Cornhole Scoring as evidenced by "Automated Cornhole Scoring System" (hereinafter Automated).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Petrarca does not disclose the indicator light being configured to alternately indicate one of two team turns; the one or more base processors further configured to: determine a first team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and a first team turn; determine a second team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and a second team turn; determine a round team score by subtracting a lower of the first and second team score from a higher of the first and second team score; determine a running score by adding the round team score to a corresponding running team score; and send a signal to the display to enable the display of the running team score.
However, Behroozian teaches the one or more base processors further configured to: determine a first team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and a first team turn (necessary in order for the scoreboard to perform automated score tracking; Page 7 - Table I); determine a second team score based on signals from the IR sensor and the vibration sensor and a second team turn (Scores are determined for both teams 1 and 2; Page 8 - Table III).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Behroozian for the benefit of automating the scoring so that each team doesn’t have to keep track of it. The sensors will be able to detect the beanbags passing through the hole and the beanbags impacting the cornhole board in order to calculate the scores for each team.
Scoreboard teaches the indicator light being configured to alternately indicate one of two team turns (light indicating different teams by color; 6:03-6:07).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Scoreboard for the benefit of displaying which team is supposed to be playing. By displaying the team color, the teams will clearly see whose turn it is to throw the beanbags.
Automated teaches determine a round team score by subtracting a lower of the first and second team score from a higher of the first and second team score (cancellation scoring shown from minute 1:09 to 1:47); determine a running score by adding the round team score to a corresponding running team score (running score shown in the displays; 1:44-1:47); and send a signal to the display to enable the display of the running team score (1:44-1:47).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Automated because cornhole already uses cancellation scoring, so it would be necessary for an automated scoring system to implement cancellation scoring in their process.
Regarding claim 9, Petrarca does not disclose a mode selector carried by the pair of panels and coupled to the one or more processors to enable selection of at least a remote mode, a power off mode, and dual board mode with the a second cornhole game board.
However, Automated teaches a mode selector carried by the pair of panels and coupled to the one or more processors to enable selection of at least a remote mode, a power off mode, and dual board mode with the a second cornhole game board (off mode selector; 0:37-0:39).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Automated for the benefit of giving the user a way to turn on or off the automated scoring.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrarca in view of Behroozian in view of Scoreboard as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Shirley I. Kowtko (US 20210038958 A1; hereinafter Kowtko).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Petrarca does not disclose the indicator light being configured to indicate one of two team turns; the indicator light configured to emit two different colors including a first color corresponding to a first team and a second color corresponding to a second team; and two sets of beanbags including a first set of beanbags with the first color corresponding to the first team and a second set of beanbags with the second color corresponding to the second team.
However, Scoreboard teaches the indicator light being configured to indicate one of two team turns (light indicating different teams by color; 6:03-6:07); the indicator light configured to emit two different colors including a first color corresponding to a first team (red for first team; 6:03-6:07) and a second color corresponding to a second team (blue for second team; 6:03-6:07).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Scoreboard for the benefit of avoiding confusion with the beanbags. By having colors on the beanbags, each team will visually know who is scoring and easily verify those results.
Kowtko teaches two sets of beanbags including a first set of beanbags with the first color corresponding to the first team and a second set of beanbags with the second color corresponding to the second team (each player will represent a team and beanbags have different colors for each player; ¶17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Kowtko for the benefit of avoiding confusion with the beanbags. By having colors on the beanbags, each team will visually know who is scoring and easily verify those results.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrarca in view of Behroozian in view of Scoreboard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradley Steven Michael (US 20200391095 A1; hereinafter Michael).
Regarding claim 11, Petrarca does not disclose a hole light positioned proximate to the aperture; the one or more base processors further coupled to the hole light and further configured to: send signals to the hole light and the indicator light to enable the hole light and the indicator light to emit light when powered on, in response to a winner, and in response to a score.
However, Michael teaches a hole light positioned proximate to the aperture (LED attachment 45 lights up the target 45; ¶42 and Fig 3A); the one or more base processors further coupled to the hole light and further configured to: send signals to the hole light and the indicator light to enable the hole light (processor 11 can control these LEDs through signals; ¶42) and the indicator light to emit light when powered on, in response to a winner (they have an LED representing a twenty-first point, which is the winning number; ¶16), and in response to a score (plurality of score keeping lamps 20 and 30; ¶34).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Michael for the benefit of visually displaying when a team scores for visual confirmation of which team scored or which team is winning.
Regarding claim 12, Petrarca does not disclose a speaker carried by one of the pair of panels; and the one or more base processors further coupled to the speaker to enable the speaker to emit one or more of: an audible instruction, a celebratory sound associated with scoring, or an audible score.
However, Michael teaches a speaker carried by one of the pair of panels (speaker for transmitting an audible tone; ¶10); and the one or more base processors further coupled to the speaker to enable the speaker (processor 11 coupled to speaker 16; Fig 2) to emit one or more of: an audible instruction, a celebratory sound associated with scoring, or an audible score (for scorekeeping; ¶10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Petrarca to implement the teachings of Michael for the benefit of implementing another way to confirm the calculations of the score. Besides visual confirmation, this will allow the user to have audio confirmation when a team scores.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowed if 112(b) rejection is fixed.
Claim 10, 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, fixing the 112(b) rejection, and fixing the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-5pm.
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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights