DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendments received 31 March 2026.
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 § 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 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donntag et al. (US 5,181,717) in view of Rapaport et al. (US 2009/0325745 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Donntag discloses a three layered sport ball (Figure 2) or (Figure 3) comprising: a first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]; see col. 11 lines 4-7: “[a]ny type of carcass 21 can be used, e.g., a bladder made of butyl or butyl-isoprene rubber, with a filamentary coating, as explained hereinabove with reference to Fig. 2”) enclosing a volume of gas, the first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]) comprised of a first material (col. 10 lines 53-55: “butyl rubber, butyl-isoprene rubber, a mixture of butyl and natural rubber or a mixture of butadiene and natural rubber” and col. 11 line 5: “butyl or butyl-isoprene rubber”), and the first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]) being sealed (such that the ball remains inflated) to prevent escape of the volume of gas from the first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]); a second layer [19] or (filamentary coating integral to carcass [21]; see col. 11 lines 4-7: “[a]ny type of carcass 21 can be used, e.g., a bladder made of butyl or butyl-isoprene rubber, with a filamentary coating, as explained hereinabove with reference to Fig. 2”), wherein the second layer [19] or (filamentary coating integral to carcass [21]) is configured to contain the first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]) and enclosed gas, and wherein the second layer [19] or (filamentary coating integral to carcass [21]) is formed of a second material (col. 48-51: “a continuous filament made of “Nylon”, more particularly, “Nylon 6,6”, or in a polyester of a mixture, PES/P.A.” and col. 11 lines 5-7: “a filamentary coating, as explained hereinabove with reference to Fig. 2”) different from the first material (col. 10 lines 53-55: “butyl rubber, butyl-isoprene rubber, a mixture of butyl and natural rubber or a mixture of butadiene and natural rubber” and col. 11 line 5: “butyl or butyl-isoprene rubber”) of the first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]); and a third layer [10] or [20] comprising a third material (col. 10 line 42: “a foam 10 made of polyurethane” or col. 11 line 1: “a foam 20” and col. 12 lines 65-66: “foams with integral skin made of polyurethanepolyurea”) different from the first material (col. 10 lines 53-55: “butyl rubber, butyl-isoprene rubber, a mixture of butyl and natural rubber or a mixture of butadiene and natural rubber” and col. 11 line 5: “butyl or butyl-isoprene rubber”) and the second material (col. 48-51: “a continuous filament made of “Nylon”, more particularly, “Nylon 6,6”, or in a polyester of a mixture, PES/P.A.” and col. 11 lines 5-7: “a filamentary coating, as explained hereinabove with reference to Fig. 2”), wherein the second layer [19] or (filamentary coating integral to carcass [21]) contacts the first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]) and the third layer [10] or [20], and wherein the third layer [10] or [20] encloses each of the first layer [17] or (bladder integral to carcass [21]) and the second layer [19] or (filamentary coating integral to carcass [21]) such that the third material (col. 10 line 42: “a foam 10 made of polyurethane” or col. 11 line 1: “a foam 20” and col. 12 lines 65-66: “foams with integral skin made of polyurethanepolyurea”) forms an outermost layer (see [10] or [20]) of the sport ball (Figure 2) or (Figure 3) (col. 2 lines 62-68, col. 3 lines 12-17, col. 9 line 60 – col. 12 line 67, and Figures 1-11). Donntag does not disclose the first layer being sealed to prevent injection. Rapaport, however, teaches a similar layered sports ball [10] including a first layer [40] enclosing a volume of gas, the first layer [40] being sealed (paragraph 0028: “sealed and valveless”) to prevent injection and escape of the volume of gas from the first layer [40] (paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0028, 0054, and Figure 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Donntag’s first layer to be sealed to prevent injection and escape of the volume of gas because Rapaport teaches that this configuration creates a ball with more uniform balance and bounce characteristics than a sport ball with a valve and allows the ball to be pressurized during manufacturing and remain pressurized for the useful life of the ball (paragraphs 0028 and 0054).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Donntag discloses the three layered sport ball of claim 21, wherein the third layer [10] comprises casing panels [53], wherein the casing panels [53] include one or more grooves, ridges, recesses, or dimples (col. 10 lines 40-65, col. 11 lines 18-62, and Figures 2 and 4-7; wherein, after gluing, grooves exist between hexagonal panels [53]).
Regarding claim 23, Donntag discloses the three layered sport ball of claim 21, wherein the third layer [20] includes two hemispherical halves (col. 12 line 23: “[t]he lower hemisphere” (see external layer [66] in Figure 10) and col. 12 lines 47-48: “the superior hemisphere”) joined at a single circumferential seam (col. 10 line 66 – col. 11 line 7, col. 11 line 63 – col. 12 line 64, and Figures 3 and 8-11).
Regarding claim 24, Donntag discloses the three layered sport ball of claim 21, wherein the third material (col. 10 line 42: “a foam 10 made of polyurethane” or col. 11 line 1: “a foam 20” and col. 12 lines 65-66: “foams with integral skin made of polyurethanepolyurea”) includes one of a bio-EVA or a thermoplastic polyurethane (col. 10 line 42: “polyurethane” or col. 11 line 1: “a foam 20” and col. 12 lines 65-66: “foams with integral skin made of polyurethanepolyurea”) (col. 2 lines 63-68, col. 10 lines 40-43, 58-63, col. 10 line 68 – col. 11 line 3, and col. 12 lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Donntag discloses the three layered sport ball of claim 21, wherein the three layered sport ball has a sphericity (col. 17 lines 47-49). Donntag is silent as to the specific sphericity, specifically not disclosing a sphericity of less than about .88%. However, Donntag discloses very spherical balls achieving the result of symmetrical balls with good reproducibility (col. 17 lines 47-49); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that sphericity is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Donntag’s ball to have a sphericity of less than about .88% to achieve desired spherical shape, symmetry, and reproducibility, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 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. Specifically, Rapaport has been cited for the teaching of a valveless sports ball which includes a bladder which is sealed to prevent injection and escape of a volume of gas as outlined above for the advantages detailed in paragraphs 0028 and 0054.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-6, 11-14, and 26-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the combination including the casing including two hemispherical halves joined at a single circumferential seam in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art. The closest prior art is Berggren et al. (US 8,672,784 B2) and Chien-Chuan (BR 102017019815 A2 using machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Berggren discloses a sport ball [80] comprising: a bladder [84] enclosing a volume of gas, the bladder [84] comprised of a first material (col. 10 lines 43-46: “a material that includes a first layer of thermoplastic polymer material and a second layer of ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer”), the bladder [84] being sealed (col. 11 lines 62-63: “valve insert 97 forms a seal to prevent the fluid from escaping”); an intermediate layer [83] disposed radially adjacent to the bladder [84], wherein the intermediate layer [83] is configured to contain the bladder [84] and enclosed gas, and wherein the intermediate layer [83] is formed of a second material (col. 10 line 37: “ formed from a string, thread, yarn, or filament”) different from the first material of the bladder [84]; a casing [82] including a casted material [86] (col. 11 line 16: “rubber”) different from the first material and the second material, and the casing [82] including two hemispherical halves (see four rubber elements [86] in Figure 21B creating a hemisphere) joined at a circumferential seam, and wherein the casing [82] encloses each of the bladder [84] and the intermediate layer [83]; and one or more casing panels [81] attached to an outer surface of the casing [82], the one or more casing panels [81] forming an outermost surface of the sport ball [80] (col. 10 line 25 – col. 11 line 67 and Figures 17-22). Berggren does not disclose the bladder being valveless, however this feature is disclosed by Rapaport for the advantages outlined in paragraph 4 above. Berggren does not disclose the casted material including a polyurethane foam. However, Chien-Chuan discloses a similar layered sports ball [100] (see Figure 4) having a casing [30] including a casted material, wherein the casted material includes polyurethane foam (pages 2-3 and Figure 4). Chien-Chuan discloses the desirability of using polyurethan foam since it will permeate with the pores of a wound intermediate layer [13] such that the casing is able to bond to an outer surface of the bladder (page 3). However, none of these references disclose or render obvious the casing including two hemispherical halves joined at a single circumferential seam especially in combination with the casing being a casted material including a polyurethane foam. Rather, Berggren discloses vulcanizing a rubber material in a mold [90] such that the casted material is completely melted to form a vulcanized rubber shell (col. 11 lines 16-25 and Figures 21C-21E). No single circumferential seam is disclosed as being formed. As such, the claims 1, 5-6, 11-14, and 26-27 are in condition for allowance.
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 AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 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, 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711