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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by REKETTYE US 2,770,213 (“REKETTYE”).
As per claim 1, REKETTYE discloses a ball spinner device (apparatus for spinning basketball B)(at least Figs. 1-3 and 2:17-3:38) comprising :a base (plate 19)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:29-38);at least three ball supports supported by the base for supporting a ball and allowing the ball to be spun relative to the base (rollers 23 supported by bracket 22 upon base 19)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:38-48); a ball-engaging member (wheels 30)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:61+); a drive system coupled to the ball-engaging member for driving rotation of the ball-engaging member (motor assembly 38)(Figs. 1 and 2; 3:6-29); and a support member for directly or indirectly supporting the ball-engaging member and the drive system (to include base 10, arm 34 and arm 32)(Fig. 1; 2:69-3:5), the support member configured to allow positioning of the ball- engaging member on a top center of the ball for at least stabilizing and spinning the ball about a spin axis to achieve gyroscopic stability (Figs. 1 and 2; 3:6-38), the ball spinner device configured so that, when the ball is placed on the ball supports (Figs. 1 and 2) and is spun via the ball-engaging member and drive system to achieve gyroscopic stability (the ball spans upon rollers 23 as wheels 30 (ball engaging member) driven by motor 38)(Figs. 1 and 2; 3:5+), the distance between a bottom of the ball and the base is sufficient (a sufficient distance between base 19 and ball B)(Figs. 1 and 2).
With respect to the functionality of the device, “to allow a person to place a finger or other holder under the spinning ball substantially in line with the spin axis to lift the spinning ball off of the ball supports and balance the spinning ball on the finger or other holder at a position substantially in line with the spin axis”, as set forth in the previous office action (mailed 9-4-2025, pages 4-5) “per MPEP 2114, II. It states "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)” . Accordingly, since the device of REKETTYE includes all the structural as claimed, namely, at least three ball supports, a ball engaging member, a drive system, and a support member, the examiner takes the position that REKETTYE’s device is fully capable of performing as claimed.
As per claim 3, REKETTYE discloses wherein the ball supports comprise wheels (rollers 23)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:44-49).
As per claim 6, REKETTYE discloses wherein at least a portion of the support member is movable up and down relative to the ball to allow the ball-engaging member to be placed on the ball and taken off the ball (arm 32 pivots and movable via pin 33-adjuatble screw 35 (Fig. 1 and 2:70-3:5) and a second pedal 68-clecis 70-link rod 71-tunbuckel 74-upper rod 73)(Fig. 1; 3:59-71).
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein at least a portion of the support member is movable or rotatable so that the ball engaging member can be placed onto the ball for spinning and taken off of the spinning ball to allow for removal of the spinning ball, as discussed above with respect to claim 6, the support member allow rotatable and/or up-down of arm 32 to remove the basketball B form the supports thereof (Fig. 1; 2:70-3:5 as the pivot means; and 3:59-71 “up-down” means).
As per claim 8, REKETTYE discloses wherein the drive system includes a direct-drive motor for supporting and driving rotation of the ball-engaging member (motor 38 to drive wheels 30)(Figs. 1 and 2; 3:6-17).
As per claim 11, REKETTYE discloses wherein the drive system includes a motor that drives rotation of the ball-engaging member through a transmission system (Figs. 1 and 2; 3:6-29).
As per claim 14, REKETTYE discloses wherein the transmission system comprises gears (Figs. 1 and 2; 3:18-29).
As per claim 18, REKETTYE discloses further comprising feet on a bottom of the base (legs 11)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:17-39).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REKETTYE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips US 3,531,876 (“Phillips”).
As per claim 2, REKETTYE is not specific regarding wherein the at least three ball supports comprise exactly three ball supports.
However, Phillips discloses wherein at least three ball supports comprise exactly three ball supports (three ball supports 14, 16 and 18)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:30-34). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s wherein the at least three ball supports comprise exactly three ball supports for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way to include a suitable number of ball supports that provide sufficient support to the ball.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REKETTYE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Al-Motawwah US 9,039,421 (“Al-Motawwah”).
As per claim 4, REKETTYE is not specific regarding wherein the ball supports comprise omnidirectional casters.
However, Al-Motawwah discloses wherein the ball supports comprise omnidirectional casters (Fig. 1 and 3:36-37). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s wherein the ball supports comprise omnidirectional casters for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in providing a simple substitution for one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of forming ball spinner’s ball support means that are capable to support the ball and the ball can spun while been supported thereupon.
As per claim 17, REKETTYE is not specific regarding wherein the ball supports are movable and lockable in different positions to accommodate different size balls.
However, Al-Motawwah discloses wherein the ball supports are movable and lockable in different positions to accommodate different size balls (rollers 12, 12’ and 14 are movable/lockable within slot 16 (Fig. 1; 5:48+). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s wherein the ball supports are movable and lockable in different positions to accommodate different size balls as taught by Al-Motawwah for the reasons that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Al-Motawwah’s teachings and suggestions to provide such means to allow different sizes of ball to be supported via ball supports. Such modification to REKETTYE is much desired as it allow different sizes of ball/s to be supported upon the ball supports.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REKETTYE.
As per claim 5, although REKETTYE is not specific regarding wherein the ball supports comprise ball bearings, once again attention to applicant’s disclosure “The ball supports may include wheels, omnidirectional casters, ball bearings, or other mechanisms that allow the ball to be spun relative to the base. Alternative embodiments can include other numbers or types of ball supports” (page 5:4-6). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that any suitable rolling means (e.g., wheels, casters, ball bearings, etc.), that suitable to support and spun the ball, would have been an obvious to use within the device of REKETTYE. Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s wherein the ball supports comprise ball bearings for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known rolling means to support a ball and allow it to span thereupon.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REKETTYE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart US 3,591,181 ("Stewart").
As per claim 9, REKETTYE is not specific regarding wherein the drive system includes a bit and a drive shaft in which the ball-engaging member is mounted to the bottom of the drive shaft and the bit is mounted to the top of the drive shaft to be driven by an external drive device.
However, in the field of supporting device for purposes of spinning thereof, Stewart discloses wherein a drive system includes a bit and a drive shaft in which the engaging member is mounted to the bottom of the drive shaft and the bit is mounted to the top of the drive shaft to be driven by an external drive device (motorized spinner 27 with engaging member, contact wheel 46 to engage and spin a supported top spin 25 upon holder 29)(Fig. 5; 2:23-48). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE wherein the drive system includes a bit and a drive shaft in which the engaging member is mounted to the bottom of the drive shaft and the bit is mounted to the top of the drive shaft to be driven by an external drive device for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of a known drive system that includes an engaging member, that is suitable to provide a rotational capabilities to a supported article, object, while engaging with the device, object. A skilled artisan, furthermore, would have appreciated that any suitable drive system (e.g., with a bit and a drive shaft) would have been obvious to incorporate within REKETTYE as it provides a sufficient rotational power/mans to the ball engaging member to rotate the ball while supported within the device.
As per claim 10, Stewart discloses wherein the external drive device comprises a power drill (motorized pinner 27)(Fig. 5 and 2:36-42). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s wherein the external drive device comprises a power drill for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9.
As per claim 15, REKETTYE is not specific regarding wherein the drive system includes a power tool, and wherein the support member is configured to hold and support the power tool that in turn holds the ball-engaging member.
However, Stewart discloses wherein the drive system includes a power tool (motorized spinner 27 with engaging member, contact wheel 46 to engage and spin a supported top spin 25 upon holder 29)(Fig. 5; 2:23-48). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s drive system includes a power tool as taught by Stewart for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9.
With respect to “and wherein the support member is configured to hold and support the power tool that in turn holds the ball-engaging member”, note REKETTYE’s Fig. 1 as the support member is configure to hold a drive/holding system (motor 38 supported upon arm 32; Fig. 1 and 3:5+).
As per claim 16, Stewart discloses wherein the power tool is a power drill (motorized pinner 27)(Fig. 5 and 2:36-42). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s wherein the power tool is a power drill for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REKETTYE as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pain US 2,957,252 (“Pain”).
As per claims 12,13, REKETTYE is not specific regarding wherein the transmission system comprises a belt (claim 12); wherein the transmission system comprises a chain (claim 13).
However, Pain discloses wherein a transmission system comprises a belt and wherein the transmission system comprises a chain (such as chain/belts 37 and/or 40, for a transmission system for supporting and rotating a sphere 11 via casters 11 and wheel 15)(Figs. 1, 4 and 5; 2:22-28 and 3:29+). Therefore, 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 to form REKETTYE’s wherein a transmission system comprises a belt and wherein the transmission system comprises a chain for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in providing a simple substitution for one known element (REKETTYE’s transmission system) for another (Pain’s transmission system) to provide means to allow rotational of the ball while the ball is supported upon the rollers, via a known drive system utilizing a transmission with belt or chain. A skilled artisan, furthermore, would have appreciated that any well-known transmission system would have been equally suitable to allow the rotational of the ball, via the ball engaging means, as the ball supported upon the ball supports, as the same predictable results of providing rotational capabilities to the ball would have been attained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the distance between a bottom of the ball and the base is sufficient, such new limitations are taught by the newly cited reference to REKETTYE (a sufficient distance between base 19 and ball B)(Figs. 1 and 2).
With respect to the functionality of the device, “to allow a person to place a finger or other holder under the spinning ball substantially in line with the spin axis to lift the spinning ball off of the ball supports and balance the spinning ball on the finger or other holder at a position substantially in line with the spin axis”, as set forth above (as well as in previous office actions), as the court held while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. The examiner maintains his position that the prior art (e.g., REKETTYE) is fully capable to function as claimed since it includes all the structural limitation claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 3/12/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711