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 § 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 15, the recitation of an “.STL file” renders the claim indefinite because the definition of an “.STL file” does not have fixed limits. Although this type of file may be currently related to a particular type of software, this has not been clearly recited in the disclosure and it may change over time and therefore it is not sufficiently limiting to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hebert et al. (US 9,504,881, hereafter Hebert)
With respect to claim 1, Hebert teaches a golf ball printing system (device 8), comprising: a support mechanism (platform 12) configured to hold a golf ball; a motion device (rotation supports 10) configured to rotate the golf ball about an axis of rotation, a rotation control device (processing device 36) configured to vary the axis of rotation; and a printing device comprising a marking tool (marking arm 18) configured to remain stationary while applying marking material to the golf ball while the golf ball is held in the support mechanism; wherein the motion device is configured to rotate the golf ball while the marking tool applies marking material to the golf ball to produce a marking pattern on the golf ball. (col. 2, lines 28-33, col. 6, lines 15-24, col. 7, lines 16-20, col. 12, lines 21-26, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 2, Hebert teaches wherein the rotation control device is configured to vary the axis of rotation continuously while the motion device is rotating the golf ball. (col. 5, lines 38-42, col. 7, lines 16-20, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 3, Hebert teaches wherein the marking tool comprises a marking tip (marking tip 18) configured to contact a surface of the golf ball while the golf ball is held by the support mechanism. (col. 7, lines 39-55)
With respect to claim 4, Hebert teaches wherein the marking tool comprises an ink dispenser. (col. 7, lines 39-55)
With respect to claims 5-6, Hebert teaches a control unit connected to the motion device, the rotation control device, and the printing device, wherein the control unit is configured to control the motion device, the rotation control device, and the printing device to produce the marking on the golf ball. (col. 2, lines 28-33, Hebert teaches an automated device which must inherently have such a control unit)
With respect to claims 8-9, Hebert teaches the marking comprises a continuous marking and a start-stop device configured to control application of the marking material while the golf ball is rotating to thereby produce a non-continuous marking. (col. 9, lines 24-42, the wide variety of sub-patterns are non-continuous markings and the system must have a start-stop device in order to create these patterns.)
With respect to claim 11, Hebert teaches a method for printing a marking on a surface of a golf ball, the method comprising: receiving, at a design system comprising a processing unit (processing device 36), an intended design for a golf ball marking, the intended design including a shape of the marking and a position of the marking on the golf ball; generating, by the processing unit, a marking plan based on the shape and position of the golf ball marking of the intended design, wherein the marking plan includes rotation instructions; placing the golf ball in a support mechanism (platform 12) connected to a motion device (rotation supports 10) configured to rotate the golf ball; placing the golf ball in contact with a stationary marking tool (marking arm 18); and rotating the golf ball with the motion device based on the rotation instructions to produce the golf ball marking on the golf ball. (col. 2, lines 28-33, col. 5, lines 38-42, col. 6, lines 15-24, col. 7, lines 16-20, col. 12, lines 21-26, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 12, Hebert teaches the holder further comprises a rotation control device (processing device 36) configured to vary an axis of rotation of the golf ball. (col. 5, lines 38-42, col. 7, lines 16-20, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 13, Hebert teaches the axis of rotation is continuously varied while the golf ball is rotated. (col. 5, lines 38-42, col. 7, lines 16-20, Figs. 1-5)
With respect to claim 14, Hebert teaches that receiving the intended design comprises receiving a design file. (col. 2, lines 28-33, col. 5, lines 38-42, col. 6, lines 15-24, col. 7, lines 16-20, col. 12, lines 21-26, Figs. 1-5; note that any file containing a design is considered to be a design file)
With respect to claims 16-17, Hebert teaches intervals of starting and stopping the application of the marking material while the golf ball is rotating in order to produce a non-continuous marking, wherein the non-continuous marking comprises segments that are spaced from each other on the surface of the golf ball. (col. 9, lines 24-42, the wide variety of sub-patterns are non-continuous markings and the system must have a start-stop device in order to create these patterns.)
With respect to claim 19, Hebert teaches a golf ball printing system, comprising: a design system comprising a central processing unit (processing device 36) and a modeling unit, the modeling unit configured to receive an intended design of a marking pattern and generate a marking plan comprising rotation instructions and print instructions; a rotation device (rotation supports 10) connected to the design system and configured to rotate a golf ball about a variable axis of rotation based on the rotation instructions, a printing device comprising a marking tool (marking arm 18) configured to apply marking material to the golf ball while the golf ball is rotated by the rotation device; and a start-stop device connected to the control unit and configured to start and stop the application of the marking material based on the print instructions. (col. 2, lines 28-33, col. 6, lines 15-24, col. 7, lines 16-20, col. 9, lines 24-42, col. 12, lines 21-26, Figs. 1-5; Note that the wide variety of sub-patterns are non-continuous markings and the system must have a start-stop device in order to create these patterns.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert.
With respect to claim 7, Hebert teaches all that is claimed, as in the above rejection, and teaches a motion sensor configured to detect a relative position of the golf ball, wherein the processing unit is configured to generate rotation instructions based on the relative position of the golf ball and deliver the rotation instructions to the motion device and the rotation control device. (col. 8, lines 47-51)
Hebert does not explicitly teach a vision device connected to the processing unit and configured to detect the relative position of the golf ball.
However, the use of vision devices is well-known and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to use a vision system as an alternative to the motion sensors in order to provide more accurate information to the processing unit.
With respect to claims 10, 18 and 20, Hebert teaches that it is desirable to have marks applied in various colors. (col. 7, lines 39-55) Although Hebert does not explicitly teach a device to change the color of the marking material applied to the golf ball, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to provide such a mechanism in order to be able to provide a multi-colored marking with a single marking tip.
With respect to claim 15, although Hebert does not explicitly discuss an STL file, to the extend that this is a common type of design file, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use this type of file to provide information in a known and usable format.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 1,527,691; US 2,561,947; US 6,418,843; US 2005/0204938; US 7,273,574 and US 2015/0085046 each teach a golf ball marking apparatus having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853