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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shishido (US 9,682,286). Note the basis for the rejections set forth in the office action filed June 10, 2025. Regarding the amendments to claim 1, Shishido teaches a spherical sports ball construction comprising the exterior stitched together panels sewn at their edges. Note Figures 1 and 4. Forming the panels into the spherical configuration necessarily causes the panels including the middle foam layer to exhibit an arcuate cross section as recited. Further, note the Abstract stating that the ball comprises a spherical shell-shaped outer layer having a plurality of leather panels and disposed on the outside of the ball body. In the alternative, attention is directed to Figure 8 of Shishido showing the middle foam layer experiencing an arcuate cross section between the peripheral portion and the center portion of the layer.
Regarding the amendment to claim 6, note Figures 8-10 and column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 1 stating that the middle layer (4d) of the panels is made from EVA foam material. The spherical shell-shaped outer layer comprising the EVA foam material is spherical shaped and thus, define an arcuate cross section. In the alternative, attention is directed to Figure 8 of Shishido showing the middle foam layer experiencing an arcuate cross section between the peripheral portion and the center portion of the layer.
Regarding the limitation for the ball to be more easily handleable, Shishido states that the EVA foam material is a soft, elastic material. Note column 3, line 66 through column 4 line 1. The soft, elastic material provides a softer, more easily handleable ball as recited.
Regarding claim 7, Shishido discloses a sports ball construction comprising a plurality of exterior stitched together panels sewn at their edges. Note Figures 1 and 4. The panels form a closed volume by the stitching (13). Shishido also provides an inflatable bladder (2) located within the panels. Note Figures 8-10 showing the panels comprising an outer layer (4c), a middle layer (4d), and an interior layer (15). Note column 5, lines 1-7 stating that the inner layer is made from fabric. Note column 3, line 66 through column 4, line 1 stating that the middle layer (4d) is made from EVA foam material. Regarding the limitation for the panel to curve from a thicker portion at the center to a thinner portion at the periphery, note Figure 8 and the examiner’s notations identifying the panels curving from a thicker center portion to a thinner peripheral portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
460
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido (US 9,682,286) in view of Ou (US 10,343,027). Note the basis for the rejections set forth in the office action filed June 10, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant contends that Shishido lacks the teaching for panels to taper from the center to the periphery of the panels. The applicant notes that taper requires a gradual diminution of thickness which is not taught by Shishido. However, these arguments are not persuasive. It is first noted that claim 1 has been amended to eliminate any recitation of “tapered” for the panels. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, as noted in the office action filed June 10, 2025, Figures 8-10 of Shishido show a sloped arrangement i.e., not vertical, for the foam layer and thus, using a broadest reasonable interpretation the sloped arrangement meets the limitation for the middle foam layer to taper from a thicker middle portion to the thinner peripheral portion. Again, the applicant appears to be arguing a difference in degree for the amount of taper but this limitation is not recited in the instant claims.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, the applicant refers to the bottom of a glass bottle and states that a glass bottle with the bottom shaped like Figure 8 of Shishido would stand up whereas a bottle with a bottom structure similar to the claimed invention would not be capable of standing up. However, this analogy is not persuasive in overcoming the rejection of the claimed invention. As stated above and in the office action filed June 10, 2025, the panels of Shishido teach the claimed structure. Again the applicant appears to be arguing a difference in degree that is not presented in the instant claims. Instant claim 1 merely defines the panel structure including the middle foam layer that exhibits an arcuate cross section. This limitation is met by the teachings of Shishido. It is first noted that Shishido teaches a ball structure including spherically-shaped outer panels. Forming the outer panels in a spherical shape necessarily defines the middle layer for the panels with an arcuate cross section as recited. In the alternative, attention is again directed to Figure 8 of Shishido showing the taper between the center portion of the panel and the peripheral portion. This taper also provides the middle foam layer with an arcuate cross section as recited.
Regarding the applicant’s comparison between the Half Dome of Yosemite National Park and the 18th green to demonstrate the taper of the invention, as stated above, the instant claims have been amended to delete the language relating to the taper of the middle foam layer. Claims 1 and 7 merely define an “arcuate cross section” or a “curved” portion for the middle foam layer. These limitations are met by the teachings of Shishido in providing the spherical-shaped outer panel which includes the middle foam layer. Alternatively, the middle foam layer is shown with an arcuate or curved portion between the center portion and the periphery of the panel. Insofar as the argument for the Half Dome may be applicable to the instant claims, this argument demonstrates the difference in degree which is not recited in the claims. Indeed, while both the slope of the Half Dome in Yosemite National Park and the 18th green are different, they can both be described as tapering.
The applicant also argues that Shishido’s panels are flat and also Shishido does not teach that a player’s fingers come into contact with the stitched seams. However, this argument is also not persuasive as Shishido particularly states that the panels define a spherical shell-shaped outer layer for the ball. Further, it is noted that the claims do not require that a player’s fingers come into contact with the stitched seams as argued. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the applicant’s argument that a canoeist experiencing a river gradient of 50 feet per mile is significantly different than when the 50 foot drop occurs at one point, it is again noted that this argument relates to a difference in degree that is not defined in the claims. Further, as, noted above, the Abstract of Shishido teaches that the panels including the foam layer define a spherically shaped outer layer which would be considered to be a gradual gradient. Additionally, Figure 8 of Shishido shows the curved or arcuate cross section for the middle layer of the panels as recited in claims 1 and 7.
Regarding the combination of Shishido in view of Ou, it is noted that the reference to Ou is relied upon merely for its teaching that it is known in the art of sports balls to provide the cover panels with grooves simulating virtual stitching marks or wherein pentagonal and hexagonal panels share a single edge which is visible as a simulated seam. It is noted that the reference to Shishido teaches the curved or arcuate cross section for the middle foam layer as recited.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN B WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/STEVEN B WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711