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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20, filed 5/30/2023, are pending and are currently under examination.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the implement". Claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, recites a “compressing tool”, “a rotator,” and “a bat support” however it does not introduce an “implement.” Therefore, the scope of “the implement” in claim 3 is unclear and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests changing the dependency to claim 2.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (U.S. 2008/0308184 A1), in view of Rogers (U.S. 2009/0049923 A1).
Claim 1 is directed to a device for modifying features of a baseball bat. The device comprises a compressing tool configured to compress a surface of the baseball bat in a latitudinal direction, a bat support that contacts the baseball bat, and a rotator configured to rotate the baseball bat.
Gill teaches a compressing tool in the form of a roller that compresses the surface of the baseball bat ([0040]). The roller is brought into contact with the bat to harden the bat surface and fibers ([0040]). This contact applies a lateral (side-to-side) compressive force to the bat surface at the roller-bat interface ([0040]). Gill teaches a structure that retains and supports the baseball bat during processing ([0007]; [0040]). The bat is retained in the apparatus while the roller operates, so the bat support contacts the baseball bat ([0007]; [0040]). Gill further teaches rotating the baseball bat during the hardening process ([0046]). After hardening an upwardly facing portion, "the bat can be ... slightly rotated within the bat receiving zone ... to achieve hardening of an immediate lateral area" ([0046]).
Gill does not expressly disclose a rotator configured to rotate the baseball bat, as required by claim 1.
Rogers teaches rotating a bat in a break-in device, stating that "[t]he bat ... may be rotated by hand or [by] a feed roller ... turned by a drive means," and that the bat "should be rotated in the device ... so that all points along the barrel's circumference are compressed to uniformly break the bat in" ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Gill to include a rotator, as taught by Rogers, for rotating the bat during roller-based compression. Rogers teaches that rotation, including by a drive means, is a known technique for achieving uniform circumferential compression, and Gill contemplates rotating the bat during hardening. Incorporating a rotator into Gill's apparatus would have applied a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and would have yielded predictable results (KSR Int 'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP §2143(I)(D)).
Claim 2 further adds the limitation directed to the compressing tool includes an implement that pivots in a lengthwise direction.
Gill teaches a compression arm pivotally mounted to the housing assembly, with spring members that urge the arm to "pivot downwardly," bringing the compression roller into "forcibly biased abutting contact" with the exterior surface of the bat barrel ([0042]' Figs. 1, 4). The hardening operation is performed by longitudinal (lengthwise) movement of the carriage assembly along the base assembly, with the carriage rail engaged with the track means ([0046]). Accordingly, Gill's compression arm undergoes its pivoting action as an integral part of a lengthwise compression operation: as the carriage transverses the bat's length, the spring-biased pivoting arm continuously adjusts the roller's compressive contact with the bat surface profile.
Claim 3 further adds the limitation directed to the lengthwise (longitudinal) movement during the compressing operation.
Gill teaches that "the actual hardening ... is achieved by longitudinal movement of the carriage assembly ... along the base assembly ... with the carriage rail ... in engagement with respect to the track means" ([0046]). Gill further that that "a grasping means ... can be provided which a person can use to forcibly urge longitudinal movement" during operations ([0046]). Thus, Gill teaches lengthwise-direction movement of the bat relative to the compressing tool during hardening.
Claim 4 further adds the limitation directed to the implement include[s] a roller that contacts a surface of the baseball bat.
Gill teaches the additional limitation. Gill discloses a compression roller that is brought into contact with the exterior surface of the bat during operation ([0040]). Gill further explains that the compression roller is brought into abutting contact with the bat as the carriage is moved ([0041]). Gill also teaches that spring members urge the compression arm such that the compression roller is brought into forcibly biased abutting contact with the exterior surface of the bat ([0042]).
Claim 6 further adds the limitation directed to the roller is constructed of a material that compresses a wooden surface.
Gill teaches a compression roller that is brought into abutting contact with the exterior surface of the wooden bat, compressing the wooden fibers during hardening (Abstract; [0042]). Gill does not expressly disclose the material composition of the roller.
Rogers teaches that the feed roller and the compression roller "may have metal or hard rubber contact surfaces" ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gill as modified by Rogers by constructing Gill's compression roller with a known contact-surface material suitable for compressing a wooden surface, such as metal or hard rubber, as taught by Rogers. Selecting an appropriate roller contact material from known alternatives for the known purpose of compressing a wooden workpiece is a predictable matter of material selection that yields the expected compression function (MPEP 2144.07; Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)).
Claim 7 further adds the limitation directed to the compressing tool applies controlled pressure to the surface of the baseball bat.
Gill teaches the additional limitation by disclosing that the compression roller's force/pressure against the bat surface is selectively adjustable via an adjustable biasing mechanism. Gill describes a flexibly resilient biasing mechanism including multiple spring members secured to pins within the compression arm "to facilitate the capability of adjusting the amount of biasing force exerted by the compression roller against the surface of the hitting area." Gill further explains that "any number" of spring members may be used for "varying this pressure," including applying "a minimal amount of force initially and a greater amount of force" during later stages of hardening ([0011]).
Claim 8 further adds the limitation directed to the rotator provides different increments or amounts of rotation.
Gill teaches the additional limitation by disclosing that, during repeated movements of the carriage assembly relative to the base housing, the bat is subjected to slight rotations after each movement between positions within the bat receiving zone ([0053]). This disclosure teaches providing different increments or amounts of rotation, as required by claim 8.
Claim 9 further adds the limitation directed to "the bat support contacts the baseball bat along a lengthwise axis of the baseball bat," and that "the bat support [is] positioned beneath the compressing tool."
Gill teaches the additional limitation by disclosing a bat receiving zone in which the bat is supported and retained while a compression roller applies force to the bat surface, with the bat held between opposing retaining structures so the bat is maintained in position during the compression operation. Gill discloses that the "bat retaining means" includes a bat head retaining bracket configured to "receive and retain the head area" of the bat. Gill further discloses that the head retaining bracket is "spatially disposed" from a bat handle retaining bracket such that the bat is placed therebetween, and "this area is defined as the bat receiving zone" ([0045], Figs. 1, 8, 9, 11). Веcause the bat is retained between spaced-apart brackets defining the bat receiving zone, the bat is supported along its longitudinal/lengthwise axis while the compression roller operates at the bat surface. Notably, such lengthwise support is essential to minimize beam deflection under compressive loading, ensuring uniform force application during the operation. The retaining/support structure holds the bat in the processing path beneath, and in operative relation to, the compressing roller as the roller engages the bat surface.
Claim 11 further adds the limitation directed to "a clamp that secures the baseball bat."
Gill teaches the additional limitation by disclosing a bat handle retaining bracket configured to hold the handle portion of the bat securely and detachably within the bat receiving zone, with the bracket secured to the carriage platform member ([0037]). The handle retaining bracket functions as a clamp that secures the baseball bat during compression.
Claim 12 further adds the limitation directed to "an air cylinder that depresses the compressing tool against the baseball bat."
Gill teaches depressing the compressing tool against the bat by disclosing that the compression roller is urged into biased, abutting contact with the exterior surface of the bat by a flexibly resilient means. Gill explains that spring members urge the compression arm to pivot downward, bringing the compression roller into contact with the bat surface and pressing it against the bat surface ([0042]). To the extent claim 12 is construed as requiring the specific actuator to be an air cylinder (i.e., a pneumatic cylinder) rather than Gill's spring-based biasing structure, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute a pneumatic cylinder for the spring biasing arrangement in Gill. The pneumatic cylinder would apply the same downward compressive force to the compression arm/roller, with a controllable, repeatable actuation force. Such actuators are well-known, interchangeable force-applying mechanisms in mechanical tooling and would have yielded predictable results (KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPЕР 2143(І) (B)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (U.S. 2008/0308184 A1), in view of Rogers (U.S. 2009/0049923 A1), as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4, and further in view of Ancarrow Jr. et al. (U.S. 3,823,588 A).
Claim 5 further adds the limitation directed to the roller includes a surface having at least one of a convex surface contour or a concave surface contour.
Gill teaches a compression roller biased against the bat surface via a flexibly resilient biasing mechanism, including that "the flexibly resilient biasing mechanism will include multiple pairs of spring members ... to facilitate the capability of adjusting the amount of biasing force exerted by the compression roller against the surface of the hitting area" ([0011]). Gill further teaches that varying the spring members varies the pressure applied by the roller.
Gill does not expressly disclose that the roller surface has a convex or concave contour. Gill's disclosure addresses the biasing mechanism and pressure adjustment, but does not describe the geometry of the roller's contact surface.
Ancarrow teaches a roller used to cold roll an elongated cylindrical workpiece (a shaft) wherein "[t]he roller has a crowned face" and is sized with "radii of curvature" (Col. 2, Lines 22-31). A "crowned face" is a convex roller surface contour. Accordingly, Ancarrow teaches the convex-surface-contour alternative of claim 5. Claim 5 is written in the alternative ("at least one of"), and therefore the claim limitation is satisfied when the prior art teaches either the convex surface contour or the concave surface contour; here, Ancarrow's crowned (convex) face meets that alternative.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gill as modified by Rogers to incorporate the teachings of Ancarrow by providing Gill's compression roller with a crowned (convex) roller surface contour. Ancarrow teaches the crowned roller face for controlled rolling contact on an elongated cylindrical member (shaft), and Gill likewise applies compressive rolling contact to an elongated cylindrical wooden member (bat) during hardening. Applying the known crowned/convex roller surface geometry to Gill's roller is a predictable substitution of a known rollercontact profile in a similar rolling-compression environment. The modification would have yielded expected contact behavior during compression and hardening without changing the fundamental operation of Gill's apparatus (KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MРЕР 2143(1) (D)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill (U.S. 2008/0308184 A1), in view of Rogers (U.S. 2009/0049923 A1), as set forth above with respect to claim 1, and further in view of Broe (M.S. Thesis, 2010).
Claim 10 further adds the limitation directed to a dial indicator that measures a diameter of the baseball bat.
Gill does not teach or suggest a dial indicator (or other measuring device) configured to measure the bat diameter, and neither does Rogers.
Broe, however, teaches the claimed measurement feature by expressly disclosing use of a "dial" gauge and vernier calipers to measure the bat diameter at marked locations along the bat in the context of baseball bat accelerated break-in procedures (pgs. 33, 34, 40; Appendix A, Figs. 27-28). This disclosure is thereby evidencing that monitoring diameter is a and desirable verification step when performing accelerated break-in on a baseball bat.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gill's bat compression/hardening apparatus to further include the dial indicator measurement feature taught by Broe's test methodology, because doing so is a known technique to improve similar devices and an example of simple substitution of one known measurement tool for another (e.g., dial indicator in place of calipers) to obtain predictable, repeatable diameter measurements for process verification (i.e., quantifying dimensional change resulting from the batt compression/break-in). See KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and MРЕР 2143(1) (D).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broe (M.S. Thesis, 2010) in view of Official Notice.
Claim 13 recites a device that measures features of a baseball bat. The device includes a compressive strength measurement tool that determines material strength properties of the baseball bat, and an air cylinder that depresses the compressive strength measurement tool against the baseball bat.
Broe teaches a bat-testing device utilizing a compression test apparatus (specifically a universal test machine) that applies a controlled compressive load to the bat, including compressing defined points along the bat's length, . The universal test machine, therefore, functions as a compressive strength measurement tool that determines material/mechanical strength properties of the bat based on the measured compression response (Appendix A-C). Broe further explains that this testing is performed using a commercially available universal test machine (Instron) that employs electromechanical or hydraulic power to apply the compressive load. To the extent Broe does not expressly state that the load-applying actuator is specifically an air cylinder (pneumatic cylinder), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the load-applying actuator of Broe using a pneumatic (air) cylinder as a predictable alternative force-applying mechanism for a compression test device. The examiner takes Official Notice that pneumatic cylinders are well-known in the art for interchangeable actuators for applying controllable compressive force in test fixtures and industrial tooling, and such a substitution would have yielded predictable results (KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broe (M.S. Thesis, 2010), in view of Official Notice, as set forth above with respect to claim 13, and further in view of ASTM D5873.
Claim 14 further requires that the compressive strength measurement tool be a rebound hammer.
Broe does not teach or suggest using a rebound hammer to measure compressive strength properties of a baseball bat.
ASTM D5873, however, expressly discloses a rebound hammer used to test the surface hardness of materials and thus teaches the rebound hammer measurement tool.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and procedure disclosed by Broe to employ the rebound hammer taught in ASTM D5873 as the compressive strength measurement tool. ASTM D5873 provides a known technique and instrument for obtaining an objective, repeatable measurement from a material's surface. Notably, ASTM D5873 also emphasizes the technical impact of maintaining the rebound hammer at a perpendicular angle to the test surface, as even a small deviation from perpendicular (such as 5 degrees) can produce a measurable change in rebound energy and skew hardness readings by a significant percentage. This quantifiable consequence demonstrates that proper hammer orientation is not just a procedural matter but is essential to ensuring technical accuracy and measurement repeatability. Substituting one known material-property measurement instrument for another in a testing context is a predictable choice that yields predictable results (KSR Int'I Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPЕР 2143(1)(B)).
Claim 15 depends on claim 14 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 14 and 13, as set forth above. Claim 15 further requires that the rebound hammer is oriented substantially perpendicular to a surface of the baseball bat. Broe does not teach this additional limitation.
However, ASTM D5873 expressly discloses that "a guide may be attached to the core holder to keep the rebound hammer perpendicular to the surface of the test specimen."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Broe device and procedure (as further modified using ASTM D5873) so that the rebound hammer is oriented substantially perpendicular to the test surface, for example, by using the guide taught in ASTM D5873. ASTM D5873 identifies this as a known technique for proper rebound hammer orientation to obtain accurate and repeatable measurements, and applying that known technique to bat-surface testing would have predictably improved measurement consistency and reliability (See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
Claim 16 further requires a V-block tool that is mechanically coupled to the compressive strength measurement tool. Broe does not teach this additional limitation.
ASTM D5873 expressly teaches a "steel V-block or steel cradle" for holding a test specimen during rebound hammer testing. This is a V-block support structure used in conjunction with, and operationally coupled to, the measurement setup. ASTM D5873 further discloses that "the V-block holder gives consistently higher rebound hardness values" and is "easier and more economical to build," indicating the V-block holder is a preferred selection for conventional use.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Broe device and procedure (as further modified by means of incorporating the rebound hammer testing of ASTM D5873) to include a V-block tool mechanically coupled to the compressive strength measurement tool. ASTM D5873 teaches the V-block as a known fixturing technique for supporting and restraining a specimen during measurement to improve repeatability and measurement quality, and applying that known fixturing approach to bat testing would have predictably improved consistency and reliability of the measurement (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and therefore includes all limitations of claims 16 and 13, as set forth above. Claim 17 further requires that the V-block tool dissipates the impact force of the compressive strength measurement tool against the baseball bat. Broe does not teach this limitation.
ASTM D5873 teaches a "steel V-block or steel cradle" for holding the specimen during rebound hammer testing. ASTM D5873 further explains that different holders affect rebound hardness values and that the V-block holder provides consistently higher values. This disclosure evidences that holder selection materially influences the impact/rebound interaction by stabilizing the specimen and managing the impact force path during the hammer strike, thereby affecting the measured rebound response.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Broe device and procedure (as further modified by incorporating ASTM D5873 rebound hammer testing and fixturing) to manage impact forces imparted by the rebound hammer against the bat using the V-block holder taught in ASTM D5873. ASTM D5873 identifies the V-block as a preferred holder in hammer impact testing and demonstrates that holder selection predictably affects test outcomes based on how the specimen is supported during impact. Applying that fixture technique to rebound-hammer testing on a bat surface would have predictably improved measurement consistency and reliability by controlling how impact forces are transmitted and dissipated through the specimen and fixture (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broe (M.S. Thesis, 2010), in view of Official Notice, as set forth above with respect to claim 13, and further in view of Gill (U.S. 2008/0308184 A1).
Claim 18 further adds the limitation directed to a carriage that mounts the compressive strength measurement tool, and further requires that the carriage positions the compressive strength measurement tool at locations along a lengthwise axis of the baseball bat.
Broe does not teach or suggest a carriage configured to mount the compressive strength measurement tool and position that tool at different locations along the bat's lengthwise axis.
Gill teaches a carriage assembly that moves longitudinally along a base/track arrangement. Gill discloses that hardening is achieved by "longitudinal movement of the carriage assembly... along the base assembly... with the carriage rail ... in engagement with ... track means" ([0046]). Gill therefore teaches a movable carriage mechanism that travels along the lengthwise direction of a bat.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the Broe device and procedure by mechanically mounting the compressive strength measurement tool to a carriage and configuring the carriage to position the tool at multiple locations along the bat's lengthwise axis, using Gill's carriage mechanism as the known linear translation/positioning structure. This applies a known positioning mechanism to reposition a mounted measurement tool along an elongated test article to obtain measurements at different longitudinal locations, yielding predictable results (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
Claim 19 further adds the limitation directed to tracks that guide the carriage along the lengthwise axis of the baseball bat.
Broe discloses tracks that guide a carriage along a bat's lengthwise axis.
Gill expressly teaches a rail/track guidance arrangement for longitudinal carriage travel. Gill discloses that longitudinal movement of the carriage assembly along the base assembly is achieved "with the carriage rail ... in engagement with respect to the track means" ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to guide the claim-18 carriage along the bat's lengthwise axis using Gill's track means/rail engagement arrangement. Track-guided linear translation is a known, predictable way to provide controlled longitudinal positioning of a mounted tool relative to an elongated workpiece, improving repeatability and alignment of measurements taken at different longitudinal locations (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
Claim 20 further adds the limitation directed to a bat support that contacts the baseball bat along its lengthwise axis, with the bat support positioned beneath the compressive strength measurement tool.
Broe describes accelerated break-in and related mechanical tests, but does not expressly disclose a bat support positioned beneath a compressive strength measurement tool in the manner required.
ASTM D5873 expressly discloses a core holder that functions as the claimed bat support, including "a steel V-block or steel cradle" in which the specimen is firmly seated or securely clamped, and supported beneath the rebound hammer during testing.
In view of ASTM D5873's explicit teaching of supporting and securing an elongated specimen in a V-block/cradle beneath the rebound hammer, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate such a V-block/cradle support into the modified Broe measurement setup when implementing rebound-hammer measurement on a bat. ASTM D5873 provides a known, standardized way to support an elongated test specimen beneath the measurement tool to obtain consistent hardness/strength readings, and applying that support technique in the bat context would have yielded predictable results (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711