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, 7, 9-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okonowski (4,173,337).
Claim 1, Okonowski discloses a pitch training apparatus, comprising:
a stand (support assembly 11) including two support structures (figures 1-2; second vertical pipe 31 and attachment structure 12) comprising a first and second support structures (19 and 31);
a barrier (combination of pads 37, 52, 50, 44, 33 as shown in figures 1-2; column 6, lines 13-34; the pads can be formed into a unitary piece, alternatively the pads can be formed of a net for catching the balls), positioned between the two support structures (19 and 31), configured to prevent a sports ball from passing through the barrier (combination of pads 37, 52, 50, 44, 33) when the sports ball comes into contact with the barrier; and
securing mechanisms (for example two or more of the suitable adjustable straps 48, 45, 55, 56) configured to secure the barrier (combination of pads 37, 52, 50, 44, 33) to each of the two support structures (19 and 31),
wherein:
the barrier (combination of individual or unitary pads or netting shown in figures 1-2) is positioned over at least a portion of a designated strike zone (figure 2; column 4, lines 25-27) between the two support structures,
an outer edge of the barrier (for example inner side 35 of angular pad 33 or inner side 36 of angular pad 37; Note: the edges of all the pads form a “shape”) forms a shape (as shown in reproduced figure 1, the barrier forms a shape on its outer edge), the shape having a central form (lower pad 37 has a central form) and at least one protrusion (outer portions as shown in figures 1-2 show pad 37 is substantially “L” shaped) extending from the central form,
the securing mechanisms (for example two or more of the suitable adjustable straps 48, 45, 55, 56) comprise a securing mechanism (55) coupled to the central form (central form of pad 37) and the first support structure (19) and a securing mechanism (56) coupled to the central form (central form of pad 37) and the second support structure (31; figures 1-2), and
the barrier (combination of individual or unitary pads or netting shown in figures 1-2) is positioned between the two support structures (19 and 31) such that:
the barrier is configured to prevent the sports ball from passing therethrough,
one or more openings (for example the openings formed between the outer edge of the plurality of pads and the support structure 19; or the opening formed between the lower edge of pad 33 and the upper edge of pad 37), through which the sports ball can pass, are formed by an area between the two support structures and the shape, and
the shape (the shape formed by pad 37), a position of the shape between the two support structures, and the one or more openings are (figures 1-2) configured to train a user to pitch the sports ball so as to avoid the barrier (a strike zone target is provided for training pitchers and batters as taught by Okonowski).
It is noted:
A claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (see MPEP 2114 [R-1] Apparatus and Article Claims - Functional Language).
Claim 4, Okonowski shows the securing mechanisms (48, 45, 55, 56) are adjustable, enabling the barrier to be secured at a plurality of positions between the two support structures (column 3, lines 15-38).
Claim 7, Okonowski alone and as modified in view of Roberts shows the barrier comprises a plurality of connection points for connecting the one or more securing mechanisms to the barrier (Figure 1 of Okonowski shows the barrier includes a plurality of holes for receiving the securing mechanism).
Claim 9, Okonowski shows the central form is rectangular (figures 1-2 show the central form is rectangular).
Claim 10, Okonowski shows the at least one protrusion (lower pad 37) is configured to be removably secured (strap 54 secures 37 to central pads) to the central form (central pads 50, 52).
Claim 11, Okonowski shows the at least one protrusion includes a plurality of protrusions (upper protrusion formed by pad 33 and lower protrusion formed by pad 37).
Claim 13, Okonowski shows the stand (11) is configured to maintain a distance between the two support structures (there is a distance between 11 and 31 and 12).
Claim 14, Okonowski shows the sports ball is a baseball (baseball 59).
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 3, 5, 6, 8, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okonowski (4,173,337) in view of Roberts (8,001,838).
Claim 3, Okonowski shows the securing mechanisms configured to be secured to both the barrier and the stand causing the barrier to be stretched between the two support structures (figures 1-2). Okonowski discloses the claimed device with the exception of expressly disclosing the securing mechanism(s) comprise one or more elastic bands. However, as disclosed by Roberts (figure 1a; elastic cords 108 and 109; column 5, lines 55-66) it is known in the art to utilize one or more securing mechanism which includes one or more elastic bands for attaching the barrier/strike zone target sheet to a support structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used elastic bands for Okonowski’s securing mechanism(s) given that Roberts teaches the elastic cords may have sufficient tension to hold the target sheet effectively flat during use.
Claim 5, Okonowski as modified in view of Roberts shows the two support structures each comprises a plurality of connection points (holes for receiving the ends of the elastic cords; column 5, lines 59-62) for securing the securing mechanisms to the two support structures.
Claim 6, Okonowski as modified in view of Roberts further shows for each of the two support structures (11/31), each of the plurality of connection points are spaced equidistant from adjacent connection points (Figure 1 of Okonowski shows the attachment points are substantially equidistant from adjacent attachment points. As taught by Okonowski, the pads may be formed unitary, therefore, the attachment points would be equidistant spaced along the length of the unitary pad).
Claim 8, Okonowski shows the barrier includes netting (figures 1-2; column 6, lines 13-34; the pads can be formed into a unitary piece, alternatively the pads can be formed of a net for catching the balls).
Claims 15-17, 21, 22, During normal use and operation of the Okonowski device alone and as modified in view of Roberts, the method steps set forth by applicant in the claims is inherently provided. Note the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, 13-14.
Claims 18-20, Note the rejection of claims 3, 5-6, 8.
Claims 23, Note the rejection of claim 12 above.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okonowski (4,173,337).
Claim 12, Okonowski shows the pads form a substantially L-, U- or T-shape. Okonowski discloses the claimed device with the exception of the at least one protrusion being configured to be removably secured to the central form. It is noted that the shape/form of the barrier has been given no criticality by the applicant. Lacking any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made Cosenza’s barrier in any desired shape, since it has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed T-shape was significant. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to Okonowski failing to teach a pad being positioned over at least a portion of a designated strike zone, it is respectfully asserted that Okonowski teaches that the pads form a strike zone. As it is well known in the art, a strike zone is an imaginary area above the home plate. The strike zone in the Okonowski reference is represented by the plurality of pads formed into one pad (column 1, lines 41-50). This can also be clearly seen in figures 1-2. Pad 37 represents at least a portion of the strike zone. Pad 37 is substantially “L” shaped. The left taller segment of pad 37 forms the central form and the right shorter side of pad 37 forms the shape. Therefore, Pad 37 having a central form and a shape is positioned over at least a portion of the imaginary strike zone. The Okonowski reference reads on the pending claims. The Roberts reference is a teaching reference for the use of elastic cords for holding target sheet(s).
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 MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thur, 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/
30 March 2026