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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 3, a should be added before “first layer.”
Regarding claim 1, line 4, a should be added before “second layer.”
Regarding claim 14, lines 5-6, “at least 80” should be changed to at least 80 MPa.
Regarding claim 14, line 6, “at least 50” should be changed to at least 50 MPa.
Regarding claim 20, line 2, “seven and 59 mm” should be changed to 759 mm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nürnberg et al. (US 2016/0346626 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nürnberg discloses a basketball (paragraph 0075: “basketballs”) comprising: a single integrally formed unitary body [100, 200, 400, 50, 70, or 1000] (wherein the ball is either completely integrally formed with no connecting elements or formed in portions and integrally connected to create a single integrally formed (connected together to function as a single, complete unit or joined so securely it cannot be separated without destroying the unit’s integrity) basketball) comprising: first layer [120, 220, 720, or 1120] comprising an inner lattice; second layer [110, 210, 710, or 1110] comprising an outer lattice and surface strips (paragraph 0089: “surface layer;” paragraph 0093: “plurality of panels 46;” or paragraph 0129: “surface layer, e.g., comprising a plurality of panels”) or [140, 240, or 741] (specifically see non-radial elements [140, 240, 741] of surface layer of outer lattice layer [110, 210, 710, or 1110]); and radial beams [130, 230, 730, or 1130] interconnecting the first layer [120, 220, 720, or 1120] and the second layer [110, 210, 710, or 1110] (paragraphs 0032, 0044, 0075, 0078-0086, 0089, 0093-0094, 0104-0109, 0120-0130, and Figures 1A-2A, 2D, 4A-5, 7A-7D, and 10A-10C).
Regarding claim 2, Nürnberg discloses the basketball of claim 1, wherein the outer lattice (see [110, 210, or 710]) is lobular with a plurality of lobes (paragraph 0078: “[f]our such portions 100 may be joined;” paragraph 0085: “[f]our portions 200 may be connected to form a full spherical lattice structure;” and paragraph 0104: “[t]he lattice structure 70 comprises twelve, possibly identical, portions 700”) joined (paragraph 0078: “joined;” paragraph 0085: “connected;” and paragraph 0104: “subsequently joined”) along the surface strips (paragraph 0089: “surface layer;” paragraph 0093: “plurality of panels 46;” or paragraph 0129: “surface layer, e.g., comprising a plurality of panels”) or [140, 240, or 741] (specifically see non-radial elements [140, 240, 741] around the periphery of surface layer of outer lattice layer [110, 210, 710] portions) (paragraphs 0078, 0085, 0089, 0093, 0104, 0129, and Figures 1A, 1C, 2A, 2D, and 7A-7B).
Regarding claim 7, Nürnberg discloses the basketball of claim 1, wherein the inner lattice (see [120, 220, 720, or 1120]) is spherical and non-lobular (paragraphs 0032, 0094, 0104, 0125, and Figures 1B, 2D, 5, 7A, and 10C; wherein portions [100, 200] can be integrally fabricated and 12 portions forming the lattice structure [70] may be integrally formed).
Regarding claim 8, Nürnberg discloses the basketball of claim 1, wherein the inner lattice (see [120, 220, or 720] is lobular (paragraph 0078: “[f]our such portions 100 may be joined;” paragraph 0085: “[f]our portions 200 may be connected to form a full spherical lattice structure;” and paragraph 0104: “[t]he lattice structure 70 comprises twelve, possibly identical, portions 700”).
Regarding claim 9, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to any of the above claims, wherein the outer lattice (see [110, 210, 710, or 110]) comprises outer lattice beams [140, 240, or 741] having flat outer surfaces (paragraphs 0014, 0079-0080, 0086, 0105-0106, and Figures 1A, 2A, and 7D; wherein the beams may be rectangular (i.e., having a flat outer surface)).
Regarding claim 10, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 1, wherein the radial beams [130, 230, 730, or 1130] have a uniform thickness between the inner lattice (see [120, 220, 720, or 1120]) and the outer lattice (see [110, 210, 710, or 1110]) (paragraphs 0079-0080, 0086, 0105-0106, 0123; and Figures 1A, 2A, 7C-7D, and 10A).
Regarding claim 11, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 1, wherein the inner lattice (see [120, 220, 720, or 1120]) and the outer lattice (see [110, 210, 710, or 1110]) each comprise a two-dimensional hexagonal lattice (paragraphs 0014 and 0126).
Regarding claim 12, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 1, wherein the inner lattice (see [120, 220, 720, or 1120]) and the outer lattice (see [110, 210, 710, or 1110]) comprise cells having a center-to-center distance of at least 5 mm and no greater than 12 mm (paragraph 0084; wherein lateral dimensions (and thus center-to-center distance) of the lattice cell ranges from 0.1 cm to 4 cm (1 mm to 40 mm) which encompasses the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 1 further comprising an outer skin (paragraph 0089: “surface layer;” paragraph 0093: “plurality of panels 46;” or paragraph 0129: “surface layer, e.g., comprising a plurality of panels”) over an outer surface of the outer lattice (see [110, 210, 710, or 1110]) (paragraphs 0007, 0019, 0089, 0093, 0129, and Figure 4B).
Regarding claim 16, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 15, wherein the outer skin (paragraph 0089: “surface layer;” paragraph 0093: “plurality of panels 46;” or paragraph 0129: “surface layer, e.g., comprising a plurality of panels”) is imperforate (paragraphs 0007, 0019, 0089, 0093, 0129, and Figure 4B).
Regarding claim 18, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 1 further comprising an inner skin [1200] formed on an inner surface of one of the inner lattice (see [1120]) and the outer lattice (paragraph 0120-0123, 0126, and Figures 10A-10C).
Regarding claim 19, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 1, wherein the outer lattice (see [110, 210, 710, or 1110]) comprises an outer textured surface (paragraph 0078, 0086, 0105, 0123, and Figures 1A-1B, 2A, 7B, 10A, and 10C; wherein outer lattice layer has a texture).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nürnberg.
Regarding claim 13, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according claim 1, wherein the inner lattice (see [120, 220, 720, or 1120]) comprises inner lattice beams [140, 240, 741] having a thickness and wherein the outer lattice (see [110, 210, 710, or 1110]) comprises outer lattice beams [140, 240, 741] having a thickness (paragraphs 0079-0080, 0086, 0105-0106, and Figures 1A, 2A, 7C-7D, and 10B). Nürnberg does not disclose the inner lattice beams having a thickness of at least 1 mm and no greater than 5 mm of the outer lattice beams having a thickness of at least 0.8 mm and no greater than 3.5 mm. However, Nürnberg discloses the thickness of the beams achieving the result of increasing stability and/or breaking strength of the lattice (paragraph 0082); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that beam thickness is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Nürnberg’s inner lattice beams to have a thickness of at least 1 mm and no greater than 5 mm and to configure Nürnberg’s outer lattice beams to have a thickness of at least 0.8 mm and no greater than 3.5 mm to achieve desired stability and breaking strength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nürnberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Product Range Overview.”
Regarding claim 14, Nürnberg discloses the basketball according to claim 1, wherein the single integrally formed unitary body [100, 200, 400, 50, 70, or 1000]is formed from a material (paragraphs 0033, 0112, and 0130: “polyether block amide”) having material properties, measured as injection molded, of: a rebound resilience (paragraph 0019, 0025-0026, 0033, 0112, and 0130). Nürnberg does not disclose the rebound resilience being at least 50%. However, Nürnberg discloses rebound resilience achieving the result of low deformation (paragraphs 0019, 0025-0026); thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that rebound resilience is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Nürnberg’s basketball to have a rebound resilience of at least 50% to achieve desired low deformation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. The modified Nürnberg is silent as to the material properties of the polyether block amide. Product Range Overview, however, discloses the specifications for various types of polyether block amides (“PEBAX”), wherein the materials (specifically see columns for 4033, 4533) have material properties of: a density of at least 0.9 g/cm3 and no greater than 1.2 g/cm3 (1.00 or 1.01 g/cm3), a shore A durometer of at least 80 and no greater than 92 (90 or 92); a flexural modulus of at least 80 (81 or 93 MPa), a tensile modulus of at least 50 (74 or 79 MPa), and elongation percentage of at least 150% (Tensile -strain at break; >450 or >550%) as measured pursuant to ASTM D7121/DIN 53512 DIN 53516. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Nürnberg’s material to have the claimed material properties because Product Range Overview teaches that these properties are inherent in several types of polyether block amides (“PEBAX”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nürnberg as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Seo (KR 2017-0060272 A using machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Nürnberg does not disclose the skin being transparent or translucent. Seo, however, teaches a similar basketball having a skin [1], wherein the skin [1] is transparent or translucent (claims and Figure). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Nürnberg’s skin to be transparent or translucent because Seo teaches that this configuration makes basketball enjoyable (Abstract). Additionally, regarding the limitation that the skin is transparent or translucent, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include any ornamentation or decoration depending on a user's preference, and it should be noted that matters pertaining to ornamentation which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentable distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 I.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nürnberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Basketball.”
Regarding claim 20, Nürnberg is silent as to the basketball’s specifications. Basketball, however, teaches a similar basketball, wherein the basketball has a circumference of at least 742 mm and no greater than seven and 59 mm (page 2: 749 mm - 780 mm; which overlaps the claimed range), a mass of at least 567 g and no greater than 628 g (page 2: 567 g – 650 g; which encompasses the claimed range), and a rebound of at least 52 inches and no greater than 53 inches (page 2: at least 51.2 in, i.e., 51.2 in or greater which encompasses the claimed range) (page 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Nürnberg’s basketball to have the claimed specifications because Basketball teaches that these specifications are mandated criteria by The International Basketball Federation for certified size 7 basketballs (page 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, the combination including the radial beams comprising a first number of the radial beams interconnecting the first layer and the second layer beneath the surface strips and a second number of the radial beams interconnecting the first layer and the second layer circumferentially between the surface strips and wherein each of the first number of radial beams has a first height and wherein each of the second number of radial beams has a second height greater than the first height in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art. Regarding claim 6, the combination including the radial beams comprising a first number of the radial beams interconnecting the first layer and the second layer inward of the surface strips and a second number of the radial beams interconnecting the first layer and the second layer circumferentially between the surface strips and wherein each of the first number of radial beams has a first thickness and wherein each of the second number of radial beams has a second thickness less than the first thickness in the invention as claimed is neither disclosed nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Kille (DE 102020125777 A1) and Molitor et al. (US 5,865,697) which disclose similar sports balls.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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, 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711