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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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 (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 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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genovese (4706964) in view of Budacsek (20140356114), Drazinakis (4865319), and Nguyen (20060035730).
Regarding claim 1, Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches a volleyball training apparatus (Col. 5, Lines 19-23) comprising: a base (Fig. 1 and 6, Part No. 1) including a first end and a second end; two feet (Fig. 1 and 7, Part No. 2) mounted to the base proximate to the first end; a riser (Fig. 1, Part No. 8) extending upwardly from the base; a rigid hollow arm (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 29) extending horizontally from the riser, the hollow arm having a proximal end proximate to the riser and an open distal end (See Fig. 2) spaced apart from the proximal end; a resilient member (Fig. 2-3, Part No. 36) having a first end and a second end, the resilient member extending at least partially through the hollow arm and operably connected to the arm at the first end of the resilient member (See fig. 1-3); whereby a second end of the flexible connector (31) is operably connected to a volleyball (33) (Col. 5, Lines 19-23).
Genovese does not teach the feet comprise shock absorbers, an end cap covering the open distal end of the hollow arm, the end cap including a central opening; and a flexible connector having a first end attached to the second end of the resilient member and extending through the central opening in the end cap.
Budacsek (Figures 1-9) teaches the feet comprise shock absorbers (Fig. 1 and 6, Part No. 180) (Para. 0038).
Drazinakis (Figures 1-7) teaches an end cap (Fig. 2, Part No. 15) covering the open distal end of the hollow arm, the end cap (15) including a 10central opening (See Fig. 1), and a flexible connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 17) extending through the central opening in the end cap (15) (Col. 3, Lines 55-65).
Nguyen (Figures 1-9) teaches a flexible connector (Fig. 8, Part No. 84) having a first end attached to the second end of the resilient member (Fig. 8, Part No. 86) (Para. 0022) and extending through the central opening (Para. 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Genovese with the feet comprise shock absorbers as taught by Budacsek as a means of providing feet of a ball training apparatus with a spring assembly system that allows the frame of the apparatus to move downward when pressure is applied to the frame (Budacsek: Para. 0038), to provide Genovese with an end cap covering the open distal end of the hollow arm as taught by Drazinakis as a means of providing an end of a sports training apparatus tube with a cover/cap through which a flexible connector passes (Drazinakis: Col. 3, Lines 55-65), and to provide Genovese with a flexible connector having a first end attached to the second end of the resilient member as taught by Nguyen as a means of using a spring attached to a line to return a ball to its original position in order to repeatedly practice sports training (Nguyen: Para. 0022).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches the base comprises a first cross member (Fig. 6, Part No. 4a) at the first end, a second cross member (4b) at the second end, and wherein the feet are mounted to the first cross member.
It is noted that the prior art of Genovese teaches feet (Fig. 1 and 6-7, Part No. 2) that are indirectly mounted to the first cross member.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches rollers (See fig. 7) are mounted to the base proximate to the first end of the base (See fig. 1 and 6-7).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches the riser (Fig. 1, Part No. 8) is mounted to the base proximate to the second end of the base (See fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches a handle (Fig. 1, Part No. 24) mounted to the riser to aid in moving the training device by rolling it on the rollers (See fig. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches two feet (Fig. 1 and 7, Part No. 2) mounted to the base proximate to the first end.
The modified Genovese does not teach the shock absorbers each comprise a mounting mechanism attaching a spring to the base at an upper end of the spring and a lower cap attached to a lower end of the spring.
Budacsek (Figures 1-9) teaches the shock absorbers each comprise a mounting mechanism attaching a spring (Fig. 1 and 6, Part No. 180) (Para. 0038) to the base at an upper end of the spring and a lower cap (182) attached to a lower end of the spring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with the shock absorbers each comprise a mounting mechanism attaching a spring to the base at an upper end of the spring as taught by Budacsek as a means of providing feet of a ball training apparatus with a spring assembly system that allows the frame of the apparatus to move downward when pressure is applied to the frame (Budacsek: Para. 0038).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches two feet (Fig. 1 and 7, Part No. 2) mounted to the base proximate to the first end.
The modified Genovese does not teach the lower cap comprises a non-marking high friction material.
Budacsek (Figures 1-9) teaches the lower cap (182) comprises a non-marking high friction material (Para. 0026, 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with the lower cap comprises a non-marking high friction material as taught by Budacsek as a means of providing feet of a ball training apparatus with a spring assembly system that allows the frame of the apparatus to move downward when pressure is applied to the frame (Budacsek: Para. 0038).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches two feet (Fig. 1 and 7, Part No. 2) mounted to the base proximate to the first end.
The modified Genovese does not teach the shock absorbers each comprise a resilient member and a floor engaging member.
Budacsek (Figures 1-9) teaches the shock absorbers each comprise a resilient member (180) (Para. 0038) and a floor engaging member (160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with the shock absorbers each comprise a resilient member and a floor engaging member as taught by Budacsek as a means of providing feet of a ball training apparatus with a spring assembly system that allows the frame of the apparatus to move downward when pressure is applied to the frame (Budacsek: Para. 0038).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genovese in view of Budacsek, Drazinakis, and Nguyen, further in view of Kopp (4516769).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches spindles (Fig. 7, Part No. 2b) mounted to the base proximate to the first end of the base, whereby
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the spindles are adapted to support weights when the training apparatus is in use to add downward force on the feet and thereby resist wandering by the training apparatus” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Genovese. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Kopp is being used to teach the recited limitation.
Kopp (Figures 1-4) teaches the spindles (Figures 1-2, Part No. 14) (Col. 3, Lines 2-10) are adapted to support weights when the training apparatus is in use to add downward force and thereby resist wandering by the training apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with spindles adapted to support weights as taught by Kopp as a means of providing a frame of a ball training apparatus with means to assist in immobilizing the apparatus during use (Kopp: Col. 3, Lines 2-10).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches the handle (24) is adapted to support the weights when the training device is being moved.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the handle is adapted to support the weights when the training device is being moved” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Genovese. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Kopp is being used to teach the recited limitation.
Kopp (Figures 1-4) teaches the handle (22) is adapted to support the weights when the training device is being moved (Col. 3, Lines 2-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with the handle is adapted to support the weights as taught by Kopp as a means of providing a frame of a ball training apparatus with means to assist in immobilizing the apparatus during use (Kopp: Col. 3, Lines 2-10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genovese in view of Budacsek, Drazinakis, and Nguyen, further in view of Bourgeois (20170043234).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches an adjustment mechanism (Fig. 1, Part No. 12, 20) for adjusting a vertical position of the rigid hollow arm (29) relative to the riser (18) (Col. 3, Lines 33-38; Col. 1, Lines 55-60).
The modified Genovese does not teach a gauge that indicates a height of the volleyball based on the vertical position of the rigid hollow arm relative to the riser.
Bourgeois (Figures 1-5) teaches a gauge (Para. 0008) that indicates a height of the ball (536) based on the vertical position of the rigid hollow arm relative to the riser (See fig. 1-2) (Para. 0008).
It is noted that Bourgeois (Para. 0008) discloses: “central post 203 may include markings to indicate the height of Ball 536”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with a gauge that indicates a height of the ball as taught by Bourgeois as a means of providing a riser of a ball training apparatus with markings to indicate the height of the ball (Bourgeois: Para. 0008).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genovese in view of Thurber (20180036615) and Bourgeois.
Regarding claim 12, Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches a volleyball training apparatus (Col. 5, Lines 19-23) comprising: a base (Fig. 1 and 6, Part No. 1) adapted to rest on a floor; a vertical riser (Fig. 1, Part No. 8) supported by the base; a horizontal arm (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 29) supported by vertical riser, the horizontal arm having a proximal end proximate to the riser and a distal end opposite from the proximal end (See fig. 1); a volleyball (33) (Col. 5, Lines 19-23) resiliently connected to the horizontal arm by a resilient member (36) that urges the volleyball towards a static position at the distal end of the horizontal arm (See fig. 1); an adjustment mechanism (12, 20) for raising and lowering the horizontal arm (29) relative to the vertical riser (8).
Genovese does not teach the resilient member urges the volleyball towards a static position abutting the distal end of the horizontal arm, a gauge with regularly spaced markings positioned to show a relative position of the horizontal arm relative to the vertical riser, wherein the regularly spaced markings are labeled to indicate a height of the volleyball above the floor when the volleyball is in the static position at the distal end of the horizontal arm.
Thurber (Figures 1-7) teaches the resilient member (Figures 5-6, Part No. 40) urges the ball (30) towards a static position abutting the distal end (70) of the arm (90) (Para. 0044-0045).
Bourgeois (Figures 1-5) teaches a gauge (Para. 0008) with regularly spaced markings positioned to show a relative position of the horizontal arm relative to the vertical riser (See fig. 1-2), wherein the regularly spaced markings are labeled to indicate a height of the ball above the floor when the ball is in the static position at the distal end of the horizontal arm (See fig. 1-2) (Para. 0008).
It is noted that Bourgeois (Para. 0008) discloses: “central post 203 may include markings to indicate the height of Ball 536”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with the resilient member urges the ball towards a static position abutting the distal end of the arm as taught by Thurber as a means of providing a ball training apparatus with a ball that is held to an arm by a spring (Thurber: Para. 0044-0045), to provide the modified Genovese with regularly spaced markings are labeled to indicate a height of the ball above the floor as taught by Bourgeois as a means of providing a riser of a ball training apparatus with markings to indicate the height of the ball (Bourgeois: Para. 0008).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches the base comprises a first end and a second end, the training apparatus further comprising: shock absorbing feet (Fig. 1 and 7, Part No. 2) mounted to the base proximate to the first end; rollers (See fig. 7) mounted to the base proximate to the second end; and wherein the vertical riser (8) is mounted to the base proximate to the second end.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genovese in view of Thurber and Bourgeois, further in view of Kopp.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches a spindle (Fig. 7, Part No. 2b) proximate to the first end of the base.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “for supporting weights that increase pressure on the shock absorbing feet during use to discourage wandering by the volleyball training apparatus” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Genovese. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Kopp is being used to teach the recited limitation.
Kopp (Figures 1-4) teaches the spindles (Figures 1-2, Part No. 14) (Col. 3, Lines 2-10) are adapted to support weights when the training apparatus is in use to add downward force and thereby resist wandering by the training apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Genovese with spindles adapted to support weights as taught by Kopp as a means of providing a frame of a ball training apparatus with means to assist in immobilizing the apparatus during use (Kopp: Col. 3, Lines 2-10).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Genovese (Figures 1-9) teaches a handle (24) on riser (8) adapted with a grip portion and a shaft portion (21), wherein the grip portion is adapted to be grasped while moving the training apparatus by rolling on the rollers and wherein the shaft portion is adapted to support the weights to facilitate moving the weights with the training apparatus when the weights have been removed from the spindle.
It is noted that the claim recitations of “the grip portion is adapted to be grasped while moving the training apparatus by rolling on the rollers” and “the shaft portion is adapted to support the weights to facilitate moving the weights with the training apparatus when the weights have been removed from the spindle” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Genovese. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (to claim 1) that the prior art of Genovese does not teach “a resilient member”, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the recitation in claim 1 of “resilient” is being interpreted to mean “an ability to recover from or adjust easily to change”. It is noted that Genovese teaches a resilient member in the form of a line (36), where the line has an ability to recover from or adjust easily to change.
Applicant argues (to claim 9) that the prior art of record does not teach the recitation in claim 9 of “the lower cap comprises a non-marking high friction material”, this is not found persuasive because the lower cap of Budacsek can be considered to be a non-marking high friction material. What is considered to be “high friction” is relative as low and high friction materials are determined relative to other materials. The prior art of Budacsek does not teach the use of the lower cap for marking, and whether or not the lower is non-marking is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-15 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.
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 CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
