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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 26-27, no support for an upper surface being smooth and uninterrupted and no support for convex and concave portions and thus it constitutes new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0213087 to Weldon in view of US Patent No. 1,130,322 to Nolan and US Patent No. 3,358,878 to Ostborg et al. (Ostborg).
Regarding claim 1, Weldon discloses a base assembly for a ball display case (Fig 2), the assembly comprising a base (105) configured to support the display case on a surface, a pedestal (151) supported by the base and configured to support a ball in the display case, the pedestal including a platform (153) for seating the ball in the display case, the platform including an indentation (155) that contacts the ball. Weldon does not teach the indentation on the platform to include a spring configured to yield when contacted by the ball in the display case. In particular, Weldon does not teach the indentation to be a plurality of spring members extending horizontally from outer edge margin of the platform to hold the ball. However, Nolan discloses a platform (12) comprising a plurality of spring members (flexible tongues A, Fig 2 below) extending horizontally from outer edge margin (15) of the platform to hold a round object in place (Fig 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the indentation of Weldon with a functionally equivalent surface comprising a plurality of spring members as suggested by Nolan in order to facilitate holding and transport of the ball. The modified Weldon does not teach each spring member comprising first, second and third portions prior to supporting the ball in the ball display case. However, Ostborg discloses a spring member (11) for holding an object (15), the spring member comprising a generally horizontal first portion (11a), second portion (11b) bent downward from first portion (11a), third portion (11c) bent slightly upward from second portion (11b) prior to supporting an item. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to bend the spring members of the modified Weldon to have first, second and third portions as suggested by Ostborg in order to facilitate holding of the item.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
271
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Weldon further teaches the pedestal (151) integral with the base (105) (¶0031).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Weldon teaches the base assembly of claim 1 and further teaches spring members (flexible tongues, Nolan) comprising elongate projections (Fig 3, Nolan).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Weldon teaches the assembly of claim 5 and further teaches each spring member (A, Fig 2 above, Nolan) extends from a base portion of the spring member at outer edge margin (15) of the platform to free end of the spring member (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Weldon teaches the assembly of claim 6 and further teaches free ends form a center opening (13, Nolan) in the platform (12, Nolan).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Weldon teaches the base assembly of claim 6 and further teaches spring members (A, Fig 2 above, Nolan) taper from base portion (at 15) to the free end (at 13) (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Weldon teaches the assembly of claim 1 and further teaches platform (153, Weldon) generally circular, spring members (A, Fig 2 above, Nolan) being circumferentially spaced around the platform (Fig 2, Nolan).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Weldon teaches the assembly of claim 9 and further teaches a spacing (14, Nolan) between the spring members (A, Fig 2 above, Nolan) forms gaps separating the spring members from immediate adjacent spring members.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Weldon further teaches spring members (11, Ostborg) comprise bent finger projections (11a-c).
Regarding claim 21-22, the modified Weldon further teaches base assembly functioning with a cover (131) to be supported by the base (105) for covering the ball in the display case and can engage and sandwich the ball between cover and spring as recited since it has the structure as recited..
Regarding claim 23, the modified Weldon further teaches for each spring member, the second portion (11b, Ostborg) extends from the first portion (11a, Ostborg) and the third portion (11c, Ostborg) extends from the second portion (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Weldon further teaches each spring member including a free end formed by the third portion (11c, Ostborg) of the spring member.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Weldon further teaches free ends form a center opening (13, Nolan) in the platform.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Weldon further teaches each spring member including an upper surface arranged to engage and support the base, the upper surface being smooth and uninterrupted (Fig 3, Nolan).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Weldon further teaches each spring member first portion (11a, Ostborg) being generally horizontal, second portion (11b, Ostborg) being convex, third portion concave (11c, Ostborg).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that support for the claimed subject matter in claims 26-27 of an upper surface being smooth and uninterrupted and portions of the upper surface being convex and concave can be seen in the figures but fails to point out where in the figures disclose the claimed subject matter. Examiner understands that drawings are part of the disclosure; however, examiner fails to see how the drawings disclose an upper surface being smooth and uninterrupted and/or upper surface having convex and concave portions and applicant’s general allegation that the claimed subject matter is shown in the figures without specifically pointing out where they are shown in the figures is not persuasive and thus the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that Weldon, Nolan and Ostborg is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, all three are directed to containers to support an interior object and thus they are analogous.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant further argues that Ostborg is used to support objects of a flat bottom and thus would teach away from combining with Weldon. This is not persuasive because nowhere does Ostborg disclose their invention to only function with objects having a flat bottom. In particular, contrary to applicant’s assertion, Ostborg is silent regarding the particular arm shape to only function with objects having flat bottoms.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights