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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are 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.
Claim 1, as amended, recites the limitation “the processing unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as this is the first mention of a processing unit in claim 1. The distinction between the control unit and the processing unit is not entirely in applicant’s specification clear (see paragraph 21 for example) so it is suggested that applicant carefully consider that two distinct units appear to be claimed here.
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) 1-4, 8-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert et al. (US 9,504,881, hereafter Hebert) in view of Ono. (US 7,530,906)
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; and a control unit connected to the motion device, the rotation control device, and the printing device, 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 and 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, col. 6, lines 15-24, col. 7, lines 16-20, col. 12, lines 21-26, Figs. 1-5)
Hebert does not explicitly teach a camera connected to a processing unit, wherein the camera is configured to detect a relative position of the golf ball based on a positional marking, and 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.
Ono teaches a golf ball printing system comprising a support mechanism (turntable 6) configured to hold a golf ball, a motion device (rotating stations 3-5) configured to rotate the golf ball about an axis of rotation, a rotation control device configured to vary the axis of rotation; a printing device for printing on the golf ball; and a control unit connected to the motion device, the rotation control device, and the printing device, and a camera (image processing camera 30) connected to a processing unit 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 wherein the camera is configured to detect a relative position of the golf ball based on a positional marking, and 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. 4, line 26 – col. 5, line 25)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Hebert to include a camera and a processing unit to orient the golf ball, as taught by Ono, in order to use a known structure and process to more efficiently place the printed image in a precise desired location.
With respect to claim 2, Hebert, as modified by Ono, 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, as modified by Ono, 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, as modified by Ono, teaches wherein the marking tool comprises an ink dispenser. (col. 7, lines 39-55)
With respect to claims 8-9, Hebert, as modified by Ono, 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 10, Hebert, as modified by Ono, teaches that it is desirable to have marks applied in various colors. (col. 7, lines 39-55) Although Hebert, as modified by Ono, 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 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; performing a printing operation, including 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)
Hebert does not explicitly teach identifying, by a camera, a positional marking on the golf ball; providing additional instructions to the motion device based on the identification of the positional marking; and monitoring the printing operation with the camera and providing feedback control to the motion device.
Ono teaches a golf ball printing system comprising a support mechanism (turntable 6) configured to hold a golf ball, a motion device (rotating stations 3-5) configured to rotate the golf ball about an axis of rotation, a rotation control device configured to vary the axis of rotation; a printing device for printing on the golf ball; and a control unit connected to the motion device, the rotation control device, and the printing device, and a camera (image processing camera 30) connected to a processing unit 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 wherein the camera is configured to detect a relative position of the golf ball based on a positional marking, and 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. 4, line 26 – col. 5, line 25)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Hebert to include a camera and a processing unit to orient the golf ball, as taught by Ono, in order to use a known structure and process to more efficiently place the printed image in a precise desired location.
With respect to claim 12, Hebert, as modified by Ono, 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, as modified by Ono, 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, as modified by Ono, 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, as modified by Ono, 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 18, Hebert, as modified by Ono, teaches that it is desirable to have marks applied in various colors. (col. 7, lines 39-55) Although Hebert, as modified by Ono, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 25, 2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights