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 § 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.
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 1 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wellington Jr. (US 7444770 B2) in view of Kim (US 8885042 B2). Wellington Jr. teaches a table tennis ball, comprising: a spherical ball surface; and a marking applied to said spherical ball surface for making a ball rotation metrologically detectable (table tennis ball that is marked with geodesic lines for the purpose allowing an observer to more accurately detect the axis of spin of the ball or sphere as well as track the ball or sphere in motion). However, Wellington Jr. fails to teach said marking having a number of marking points, said marking points being distributed on said spherical ball surface such that a standard deviation of lengths of orthodromes between each of said marking points and its three closest neighboring marking points is at least 12% of a mean value of the lengths, and that a minimum length of the orthodromes between each of said marking points and its said three closest neighboring marking points is at least 40% of the mean value of the lengths. Kim teaches said marking having a number of marking points (FIG. 28 is a view of the marking points detected with respect to the golf ball corresponding to the first trigger signal (78)).
PNG
media_image1.png
214
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the markings of Wellington Jr. with the marking points of Kim to better capture the coordinates of the ball as its in motion for more efficient calculation of the spin rotation.
With regards to the second half of the limitations, the modified Wellington Jr. with Kim teaches in the disclosure (73) At this time, the marking punctures printed along each imaginary circle are arranged in such a manner that each imaginary circle is divided into four parts each having an arc, and the opposite arcs have marking punctures in different numbers or different intervals. When the marking patterns are formed of punctures, image process is easy, and it is possible to advantageously know the spatial position based on the stereo calibration method based on only the computation of the center of the punctures. These marking punctures are analogous to the marking points in the instant application. While Kim doesn’t explicitly teach a standard deviation of lengths of orthodromes between each of said marking points and its three closest neighboring marking points is at least 12% of a mean value of the lengths, and that a minimum length of the orthodromes between each of said marking points and its said three closest neighboring marking points is at least 40% of the mean value of the lengths, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the standard deviation and minimum lengths of the orthodromes result in a difference in function of the modified Wellington Jr. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the table tennis ball of Wellington Jr., would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed percent of a mean value lengths. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed percent of a mean value lengths solves any stated problem, indicating that the values are “at least” within the claimed range, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the placement of the markings in the modified Wellington Jr. device to “a standard deviation of lengths of orthodromes between each of said marking points and its three closest neighboring marking points is at least 12% of a mean value of the lengths, and that a minimum length of the orthodromes between each of said marking points and its said three closest neighboring marking points is at least 40% of the mean value of the lengths” as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 2-8, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
With regards to claims 2-8 and 12-17, they are all in regards to some number value/range of values pertaining to the lengths of the orthodromes between each of said marking points and its said three closest neighboring points. These values are “obvious to try” due to the design need in achieving the placement of the markings on the spherical surface. Due to there being a “finite number” of values that can be used, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp to come to the same conclusion as the claims.
Therefore, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process; see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A).
With regards to claim 10, Kim teaches said marking points have an infrared absorption and/or infrared reemission characteristic different from remaining said spherical ball surface, so that said marking points stand out from said remaining spherical ball surface in a contrasting manner in an infrared range of an electromagnetic radiation spectrum (the marking patterns can be printed in infrared paint and the cameras used can be changed to an infrared camera (74)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention with the infrared paint used in the Kim reference to better allow the markings on the spherical ball to be seen in a wide range of wavelengths when measuring ball rotation.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wellington Jr. in view of Kim.
Wellington Jr. modified with Kim, as discussed above in regards to claim 1, teaches a table tennis ball, comprising: spherical ball surface; a marking applied to said spherical ball surface for making a ball rotation metrologically detectable, wherein said marking has a number of marking points. With the additional limitations of claims 18 and 19, Kim teaches this within the description. It is described that a method of uniformly dividing the surface of the golf ball into eight regions and then printing three or more points in different divided regions to have different arrangement structures can be applied. This appreciates the uniform overall distribution, in regards to said marking has a number of marking points and non-uniform local distribution, in regards to said marking having eighteen of said marking points. With the various range values of the spatial relations of each point and its three closest neighbors, as described in both claims 18 and 19, being the only separating factor between the prior art and the claim, it is not enough to support patentability due to a lack of criticality for these length values; see MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the markings of the modified Wellington Jr. reference with the length values of the claims to better measure the spin rotation of the table tennis ball.
Claim 9 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wellington Jr. in view of Tuxen et al. (US 20210008417 A1). As mentioned above with respect to claims 1-8, 10, and 12-17, Wellington Jr. teaches markings that are applied to a spherical surface in order to measure a ball rotation. However, Wellington Jr. lacks a specification of a size and shape of said markings. Tuxen et al. teaches all of said marking points have a same shape and size (each marker within a plurality of markers having the same size and shape [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wellington Jr.’s reference with the same size and shape of the markings in the Tuxen et al. reference for standardization of said markings.
Claim 11 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellington Jr. in view of Kim and Lehovec (US 3630601 A). The modified Wellington Jr. with Kim teaches that the marking patterns can be printed in infrared paint, as discussed above in claim 10. The modified device lacks a mention to the marking patterns having a color in the visible light spectrum. Lehovac teaches said marking points have a color different from remaining said spherical ball surface, so that said marking points stand out from said remaining spherical ball surface in a contrasting manner in a visible range of electromagnetic radiation spectrum (it is disclosed in the description that the ball has surface patterns of regions with different optical properties, one being a projector of visible light (26)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified Wellington Jr. reference with markings on the spherical surface that can also be seen in a visible light spectrum to better allow the markings to stand out against the spherical surface when measuring ball rotation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RIA SHARMA whose telephone number (571) 345-5811. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 5pm.
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.
/R.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711