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
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claim 10 has been used to designate two different claims. Therefore, misnumbered claims 10-13 been renumbered 11-14.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 lacks a period at the end of the claim. 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 2-14 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.
Claims 2-14 recites the limitation "A ball dispensing mechanism," but depend from claim 1 and are referring to the ball mechanism of claim 1. These claims lack proper antecedent basis. Presumably these claims were intended to recite “The ball dispensing mechanism.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “a rotating outlet,” however, claim 2 depends from claim 1 which already recited “an outlet.” Therefore, this recitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Presumably this was intended to recite “the outlet” or similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the centrality of mounting” which lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 which does not previously recite this term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 8, 12, and 13 recite “the turret” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No turret was previously claimed. Further, this term appears to be referencing the dispensing mechanism. It is unclear what the distinction between this term and the dispensing mechanism is intended to be since applicants item 5, the dispensing mechanism and the turret, item 10, both appear to be the same item in applicant’s drawings.
Claim 9 recites “an outlet” which lacks proper antecedent basis. Presumably this was intended to recite “the outlet.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoffman (US Patent No. 4,141,558).
In Reference to Claims 1-8 and 14
Hoffman teaches (Claim 1) A ball dispensing mechanism for an arcade game (note that “for an arcade game” is merely an intended use, the device of Hoffman could be used with an arcade game, meeting this limitation) having: a. a receiving portion for receiving a ball to be dispensed (item 12, fig’s 1 and 2); b. an outlet (outlet of item 18, fig’s 1 and 2) for allowing a ball received to be dispensed from the mechanism (fig’s 1 and 2), wherein c. said dispensing mechanism is rotatably mounted about a longitudinal axis X and rotatable between a first position in which it dispenses a ball to a first side (A) and a second position in which it dispenses a ball to a second side (B) opposite to said first side (fig. 1, items 34 and 18);
(Claim 2) which automatically dispenses balls from a rotating outlet positioned centrally, between the player’s legs allowing balls to be dispensed for both left and right handed players (this is an intended use that does not add any structure to the claims, the device could be positioned between a players legs, meeting this limitation);
(Claim 3) in which balls (16) are automatically dispensed (fig’s 1 and 2; note “automatically” is broad, a user does not manually place a ball on a tee, the process is at least partially automated by use of the device, supply tubes, gravity, lever, etc.);
(Claim 4) in which the ball outlet can rotate in order to deliver balls to either the left (A) or right (B) hand side of the mechanism (outlet of item 18 rotates, fig. 1);
(Claim 5) whereby the centrality of mounting allows it reside between a players feet and legs in a natural stance and cause no obstacle to the natural travel of the club / stick in either a left or right handed stance (again, this is intended use language that does not add structure to the claims; the device could be placed this way, item 18 could be moved to a neutral location and the device would not interfere with club travel);
(Claim 6) which facilitates players to engage the dispensed balls (16) from either a left or right handed stance (fig. 1; again this claim does not add any physical structure to the claims);
(Claim 7) in which an integrated handle facilitates the manual rotation of the turret and thus the direction of delivery of the balls to the player (note handle is broad, horizontal portion of item 18 could be considered a handle and used for rotation, also, item 42 could be used as a handle for rotation, fig’s 1 and 2);
(Claim 8) in which the rotation of the turret and thus the direction of delivery of the balls is actuated either manually or powered (fig. 1, column 3 lines 1-4);
(Claim 14) A ball dispensing mechanism (5) according to claim 1 in which the extent of the angle of rotation of the turret (10) is controlled by an extended bearing fixing shaft (34) on one bearing (22) which acts against 2 of the bearing spacers (32) to provide a rotational stop.
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Thrasher (US Patent No. 6,155,403).
In Reference to Claims 9-10
Hoffman teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hoffman further teaches (Claim 10) in which balls are driven via [gravity], to follow a [downward] path, via a simple rotational coupling (between items 34 / 35 fig. 2) to a outlet which is above the playing surface and which can be rotated to alter the direction and thus position of delivery of the balls to the player (outlet of item 18, fig’s 1 and 2).
Hoffman fails to teach the remaining features of claims 9 and 10.
Thrasher teaches (Claim 9) in which balls (16) are supplied to a motor driven drive wheel along an inclined delivery path via gravity (fig. 1, column 3 lines 40-46);
(Claim 10) driven via a drive wheel to follow an upward path (fig. 1, column 3 lines 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf ball delivery device of Hoffman with the feature of the motor driven ball delivery system of Thrasher for the purpose of allowing the balls to be translated over a larger range and at various elevations as taught by Thrasher (column 1 lines 21-40) allowing for a wider range of configurations of the ball storage device, making the device more versatile, and more attractive to the users.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Thrasher and further in view of Hollrock (US PGPub. No. 2004/0229705 A1).
In Reference to Claim 11
Hoffman teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hoffman fails to teach the features of claim 11.
Thrasher teaches (Claim 11) in which balls are driven via a drive wheel (fig. 1, column 3 lines 22-27)
Hollrock teaches (Claim 11) a drive [] is controlled via an optical sensor which senses balls exiting the outlet (paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf ball delivery device of Hoffman with the feature of the drive wheel delivery system of Thrasher for the purpose of allowing the balls to be translated over a larger range and at various elevations as taught by Thrasher (column 1 lines 21-40) allowing for a wider range of configurations of the ball storage device, making the device more versatile, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ball delivery system of Hoffman with the feature of an optical sensor as taught by the ball delivery system of Hollrock for the purpose of further automating when a ball is to be placed on the tee as taught by Hollrock (paragraph 0032), making the device more convenient, and more attractive to the users.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of Eberle (US Patent No. 4,391,446).
In Reference to Claims 12 and 13
Hoffman teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Hoffman further teaches (Claim 12) in which the ball delivery turret is mounted through the playing surface on [a] bearing acting to both support the turret and to facilitate its rotation (item 34 on item 35, fig. 2);
(Claim 13) in which the ball delivery turret is retained by [a] bearing[] fixed to the turret (item 34 on item 35, fig. 2).
Hoffman fails to teach multiple bearings of claims 12 and 13.
Eberle teaches multiple bearings in a bearing assembly (items 20, fig. 4, and claim 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rotatable ball delivery system of Hoffman with the feature of multiple bearings as taught by the rotatable ball delivery system of Eberle for the purpose of providing a smoother and more reliable bearing surface, making the device easier to operate, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose inventions similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711