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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murrey et al (7,611,417) (hereinafter Murrey).
Claim 1, Murrey discloses a lighting system for a billiard table (100) comprising:
a frame (frame defined by upper rail 103; figure 1);
a plurality of lights (lights 120; figure 1C) disposed in the frame (lights may be mounted on the tops, outsides or underneath the railings to provide indirect lighting);
at least one lens coupled to the frame, said at least one lens for focusing a light produced by at least one light disposed in the frame (Murrey teaches that the lights may be controlled in order to produce the desired amount of light and the desired direction of light; see abstract of the disclosure; column 2, lines 41-50).
Claim 2, Murrey shows said plurality of lights comprise at least one LED light (column 5, lines 29-34).
Claim 3, Murrey shows said frame is a substantially rectangular frame (figure 1 shows the frame is rectangular).
Claim 4, Murrey further shows said frame comprises at least two longitudinally extending sections which are spaced substantially parallel to each other and at least two latitudinally extending sections extending substantially transverse to the longitudinally extending sections wherein said latitudinally extending sections are coupled to the longitudinally extending sections (figure 1 shows the frame having two longitudina9lly extending sections and two sections traverse to the longitudinally extending sections).
Additionally:
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bacus et al (9,485,399) (hereinafter Bacus).
Claim 1, Bacus discloses a lighting system for a billiard table comprising:
a frame (frame 120);
a plurality of lights (one or more lights 130) disposed in the frame (frame 120);
at least one lens (column 5, lines 1-5) coupled to the frame (120), said at least one lens for focusing a light produced by at least one light disposed in the frame (column 10, lines 6-27).
Claim 2, Bacus shows said plurality of lights comprise at least one LED light (the light source 130 includes a set of LED lights 930; figure 9, column 7, lines 63-67 and column 8, lines 1-5).
Claim 3, Bacus shows said frame is a substantially rectangular frame (figure 7 shows the frame 120 is rectangular).
Claim 4, Bacus shows said frame comprises at least two longitudinally extending sections which are spaced substantially parallel to each other and at least two latitudinally extending sections extending substantially transverse to the longitudinally extending sections wherein said latitudinally extending sections are coupled to the longitudinally extending sections (the frame 120 is shown in figures 7 and 8 to be rectangular in shape).
Claim 5, Bacus shows a center beam extending across a center region of the frame between at least one of the at least two longitudinally extending sections (as shown in figures 7 and 8, the frame 120 may include a middle frame 720 spanning across a middle portion 160 of frame 120; column 7, lines 32-62).
Claim 6, Bacus shows at least one rib extending transverse to the center beam (column 9, lines 62-67 and column 10, lines 1-5 show a middle power strip 722 is mounded to the middle frame portion 720 to provide outlet power to various elements; the power strip is shown in figure 7 to extend in a direction that is perpendicular to the middle frame portion).
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacus et al (9,485,399) (hereinafter Bacus) in view of Van De Kop et al (4,882,676) (hereinafter Van De Kop).
Claim 7, Bacus discloses the claimed device with the exception of at least one additional light coupled to the center beam. However, as disclosed by Van De Kop (figure 1; column 6, lines 53-68 and column 7, lines 1-34) at least one additional light coupled to the center beam {the laser pool ball tracking system 22 is attached io an overhead pool light 24 which is shown in figure 1 to hang over the center of the pool table; the laser pool ball tracking unit prescribes a line for the cue ball by laser projection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the system of Bacus to include at least one additional light coupled to the center beam, as taught by Van De Kop, to project light onto the table from directly above the center to enable a more even distribution of light over the table.
Claim 8, Bacus as modified in view of Van De Kop further shows said at least one additional light is a laser light. A separate encoder Is used to direct the motors to position the reflective surfaces in order to direct the laser light from laser generator 40, which Is located in the laser pool ball tracking system 22 that hangs above the center of the pool table; page 10; Hines 13-30; figure 3}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the system of Bacus to Include at least one additional light i.e. a laser light, as taught by Van De Kop, since the laser light is able to provide additional functions to the apparatus including ball tracking and projection of ball paths directly onto the table.
Claim 9, Bacus as modified in view of Van De Kop further shows said at least one additional light is a laser light configured to produce a laser line
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified Bacus to include at least one additional light that is a laser light configured to produce a laser line, as taught by Van De Kop, since a laser line is able to show past paths or aiming paths for the balls by projecting a line directly onto the table,
Claim 10, Bacus as modified in view of Van De Kop further shows said at least one additional light is a laser light configured to produce a dot (page 14, lines 7-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have modified the Bacus to include at least one additional light that is a laser light configured to produce a dot, as taught by Van De Kop, since a dot could be used to identify the center location of the-ball that is of interest to the player to further calculate a desired path,
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lipscomb et al US’149; Anderson ‘860; Horgan et al ‘758.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thurs, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
11 September 2026
Prosecution Insights