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
This action is in response to the election of restriction filed on May 5, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group 1 corresponding to claims 1-10 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 19, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence is not grammatically proper. The sentence is not a complete sentence because the sentence has no verb or action and merely includes a list of items as clauses. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the second ball comprises: a third color disposed on a portion of the surface of the first ball.” Because this clause describes the second ball, it is believed the reference to the first ball is a typographical error and this should read --wherein the second ball comprises: a third color disposed on a portion of the surface of the second ball--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “wherein at least the first ball is disposed in a framework with at least a portion of the ball exposed.” However, as the claim recites a first ball and a second ball; therefore, reference to “the ball” could be confusing. Therefore, clarifying language, such as -- wherein at least the first ball is disposed in a framework with at least a portion of the first ball exposed. -- is suggested to provide clear antecedent for this term.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In this instance claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 recite a generic place holder “apparatus” with recited functions such as, configured to suspend the first ball in a first orientation associated with the first therapy, configured to suspend the second ball in a second orientation associated with the second therapy, to rotate at least the first ball about the first axis of rotation and the second ball about the second axis of rotation, and select the first ball that includes the first pattern correlated to the first user condition; and a generic place holder “device” with recited functions, such as configured to: receive a user input from a user associated with a first user condition; correlate the first user condition to the first pattern, without any corresponding structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The device is a processor (¶9) and apparatus is a wire (¶20).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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, 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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over JP Publication No. JP 3159434 by Liangdong (“Liangdong”) in view of US Publication No. 2008/0015058 by Noble et al. (“Noble”).
In re claim 1, Liangdong discloses a system of patterned balls configured for use in therapies [Fig. 1, ¶¶1, 27, 30], the system comprising: a first ball [Figs. 1, 2-5 show multiple balls #24 (e.g., a first ball of the plurality of balls)], wherein the first ball comprises: a first color disposed on a portion of the surface of the first ball and a second color disposed on a portion of the surface of the first ball; a first pattern comprising the first color and the second color disposed on the first ball associated with a first therapy [¶¶27-30 describes each ball (e.g., a first of the plurality of balls) has colors with pattern (roulette, which is a two color pattern) and therapist specifies the color to patient for the desired therapy. In addition, the current recitation of colors and a pattern are directed to non-function descriptive material or indicia that does not further limit the structure of the claimed system (i.e., there is no function relation between the ball and the colors other than a medium of support for the indicia) and therefore doesn’t not further limit the claim with respect to the prior art1. Moreover, the language “associated with a therapy” recites an intended use of the system which does not further limit the structure of the claim with regard to prior art2]; a second ball, wherein the second ball comprises: a third color disposed on a portion of the surface of the first ball and a fourth color disposed on a portion of the surface of the second ball; a second pattern comprising the third color and the fourth color disposed on the second ball associated with a second therapy [¶¶27-30 describes each ball (e.g., a second of the plurality of balls) has color with pattern (roulette, which is a two color pattern) and therapist specifies the color to patient for the desired therapy. In addition, the current recitation of colors and a pattern are directed to non-function descriptive material or indicia that does not further limit the structure of the claimed system (i.e., there is no function relation between the ball and the colors other than a medium of support for the indicia) and therefore doesn’t not further limit the claim with respect to the prior art3. Moreover, the language “associated with a therapy” recites an intended use of the system which does not further limit the structure of the claim with regard to prior art4]; a suspension assembly, wherein the suspension assembly comprises: a first suspension apparatus configured to suspend the first ball in a first orientation associated with the first therapy; a second suspension apparatus configured to suspend the second ball in a second orientation associated with the second therapy; and a rotation apparatus configured to rotate at least the first ball and the second ball [Fig. 1 shows a suspension assembly, the assembly includes a suspension apparatus for suspending each ball associated with a therapy in an orientation (e.g., cord 23a) and rotation mechanism ¶¶22-28 describe therapies and ¶¶33-35 describe an assembly. Moreover, the language “associated with a therapy” recites an intended use of the system which does not further limit the structure of the claim with regard to prior art5].
While Liangdong teaches the use of multiple balls, Liangdong doesn’t explicitly disclose an axis of rotation about which each of the balls rotate.
However, Noble teaches a system of a suspended ball configured for use in therapies including suspension apparatus and rotation apparatus for multiple balls [Figs. 1-7, ¶¶60-70 the ball spins around an axis of rotation tether 500 may include a coupler 218 with swivel mount allowing rotation around an axis].
Liangdong and Noble are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of therapy using suspended balls. Therefore, 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 the system of Liangdong and include the coupler to providing spin and rotation of the balls around an axis from a suspension apparatus, as taught by Noble, in order to provide predictable movement of the ball in response to user touching the ball, for example, allowing a ball to spin smoothly without kinking or twisting the cord after touching and in order to provide an improved user experience, for example, by providing additional types a exercises.
In re claim 3, Liangdong disclose the first suspension apparatus is mechanically coupled to the first ball at the first axis of rotation [¶¶32,35 describe attaching ball 24 to cord 23a with a mechanical member 25].
In re claim 4, Liangdong disclose the rotation apparatus is configured to rotate the first ball for a first amount of time [¶34 describes rotation mechanism for rotating the balls. The rotation mechanism is mechanical and not instantaneous and therefore rotates the ball for some amount of time].
In re claim 5, Liangdong discloses the first suspension apparatus includes a first wire with a first length associated with the first therapy [¶¶24,27 describe different length cords for the balls associated with different therapies. In addition, the language “associated with a therapy” recites an intended use of the system which does not further limit the structure of the claim with regard to prior art].
In re claim 6, Liangdong discloses the first suspension apparatus is mechanically coupled to the rotation apparatus at a first end, and mechanically coupled to the first ball at a second end [¶¶32 describes both ends of the hanging string 23 are attached to the distal end of the linear elastic body 21 and the engaging member 25 of the spherical body 24].
In re claim 9, Liangdong discloses the suspension assembly is configurable to have a second length associated with the second therapy [¶¶24,27 describe different lengths of cord 23a with different therapies (e.g., difficulties). In addition, the language “associated with a therapy” recites an intended use of the system which does not further limit the structure of the claim with regard to prior art].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liangdong in view of Noble and further in view of US Publication No. 2014/0007009 by Kulusky et al. (“Kulusky”).
In re claim 2, Liangdong teaches providing therapies for conditions. In particular, a therapist is able to correlate a user’s condition and direct them to an associated ball for therapy, see, e.g., ¶30. However, Liangdong lacks any teaching of a computer device for selecting the ball corresponding to therapy.
However, Kulusky teaches, a computing device Fig. 3, the computing device configured to: receive a user input from a user associated with a first user condition; correlate the first user condition to a therapy; and select therapy correlated to the first user condition [Figs. 3 and 4,¶¶68-78 describe receiving a user input (e.g., from a camera) and a therapy application may also be automatically selected based on a determined medical condition of the user (correlation) determined from the input].
Liangdong and Kulusky are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of physical therapy. Therefore, 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 the system of Liangdong to replace selection by the therapist with the computer, as taught by Kulusky, in order to improve user experience, for example, providing care/therapy to the patient when a therapist isn’t available to assist.
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liangdong in view of Noble and further in view of Chinese Publication No. CN 208049330 by Ma (“Ma”).
In re claim 7, Liangdong lacks, but Ma teaches, a suspension assembly includes a framework in which the first ball and the second ball are disposed within [Figs. 1 and 3 show framework for holding two different balls 13 within the framework].
Liangdong and Ma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of training devices using balls. Therefore, 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 the system of Liangdong to substitute one holding mechanism to suspend a ball (e.g., 23a, 25) with another, e.g., the framework, as taught by Noble, in order to provide predictable result of securing a ball in a training apparatus and/or to provide flexibility of training by arranged in the balls in different manners, see, e.g., Beneficial effects 1 and 2(p. 3 of translation).
In re claim 8, Liangdong lacks, but Ma teaches, at least the first ball is disposed within a recess in the suspension assembly [Fig. 3 shows framework 3 with ball in recess with suspension assembly 5/4 for holding a first ball 13 within the recess of the framework].
Liangdong and Ma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of training devices using balls. Therefore, 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 the system of Liangdong and substitute one holding mechanism to suspend a ball (e.g., 23a, 25) with another, e.g., the framework with recess, as taught by Noble, in order to provide predictable result of securing a ball in a training apparatus and/or to provide flexibility of training by arranged in the balls in different manners, see, e.g., Beneficial effects 1 and 2 (p. 3 of translation).
In re claim 10, Liangdong lacks, but Ma teaches, at least the first ball is disposed in a framework with at least a portion of the ball exposed [Fig. 3 shows framework 3 with ball in recess with suspension assembly 5/4 for holding a first ball 13 within the recess of the framework where a portion of the ball is exposed].
Liangdong and Ma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of training devices using balls. Therefore, 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 the system of Liangdong and substitute one holding mechanism to suspend a ball (e.g., 23a, 25) with another, e.g., the framework with ball exposed, as taught by Noble, in order to provide predictable result of securing a ball in a training apparatus and/or to provide flexibility of training by arranged in the balls in different manners, see, e.g., Beneficial effects 1 and 2 (p. 3 of translation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
US 2007/0084095 provides different colored patterns to help users identify spin and train with balls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 See, MPEP 2111.05.
2 . A recitation of 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. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
3 See, MPEP 2111.05.
4 . A recitation of 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. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
5 . A recitation of 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. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).