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, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 13, and 16 recite “comprising,” which appears it should be “comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “claim1” which appears it should be “claim 1.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 recite, throughout the claims, what appear to be both a variety of intended uses and phantom elements surrounding the claimed device, however, it is unclear from the claim language what exactly is intended to be claimed. For instance, claim 1 line 4 recites an aiming ring “vertically displaced from said cue ball final location.” As best understood by the examiner, the aiming ring, 115, is intended to be either placed on a pool table or is intended to be suspended above a pool table next to a target ball. However, the aiming ring is not claimed in conjunction with the physical elements of a ball or a table, therefore, reciting that it is “vertically displaced from said cue ball final location” is confusing. Presumably this recitation is intended to mean that the device is capable of being positioned in a vertically displaced location or similar. Claims 13 and 16 have the same issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 section B then recites a variety of lines and points in relation to a “target ball,” however it does not appear that the target ball itself is claimed, therefore, it is unclear if anything physical is intended to be claimed here, or if these are simply intended to be reference points of a ball to be used in the system. Appropriate correction / clarification is required.
Claim 1 section C recites that the marking line is “parallel with said target ball horizontal central axis line.” However, this again does not appear to be a physical element. Presumably this was intended to recite that the device is capable of being placed in this manner. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 section D recites “a horizontal distance from said target ball contact point,” but, since a target ball and the claimed device are separate and movable elements, this distance is essentially a moving target. This distance would depend on where a user places the aiming ring and the target ball. Again, it is assumed that this is intended to recite a distance when a user places the aiming ring in a particular location, but, as claimed, is unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 section B and claim 16 section B recite “being directed toward said target,” which appears to be an intended use and should be recited with the language “capable of being directed toward said target” or similar, since the structure of a target, table, and other elements are not being claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 section C recites positioning recitations that, again, appear to be intended uses, but are claimed as though they are structural elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 all recite relative positions for the device in relation to a table, cue ball, and target ball, but, again, since none of these elements are claimed, these are essentially intended uses. The claim language should clearly reflect what is an intended use, and what is a structural element of the claims. As currently written, the claim language is confusing and indefinite. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Josenhans (US Patent No. 4,151,990).
In Reference to Claims 1-4, 6, and 7
Josenhans teaches (Claim 1) An aiming tool to assist a billiards player for directing a cue ball from a cue ball initial location on a billiards table to a cue ball final location where said cue ball is able to strike a target ball and propel the target ball toward a target comprising, A. an aiming ring (item 12, fig’s 1 and 2) vertically displaced from said cue ball final location (fig’s 1 and 2, unclear what is attempting to be claimed here, this appears to simply be an intended use for the device but is not a structural recitation), B. said target ball having a target ball vertical equator forming a target ball vertical equator plane, said target ball having a target ball horizontal central axis line directed toward said target and located within said target ball vertical equator plane; said target ball horizontal central axis line extending from a target ball contact point on a surface of said target ball to a target ball opposing pole located on said surface of said target ball nearest to said target (item 25, fig. 2; as best understood, this appears to simply be reciting characteristics of a pool ball, no specific pool ball with any markings appears to be claimed, only that the aiming tool can be used with pool balls which would have these inherent equatorial and central axis characteristics), C. a marking line on said aiming tool, said marking line being parallel with said target ball horizontal central axis line (item 16 aligned with item 15 and 18, fig’s 1 and 2, column 3 lines 22-40), D. said aiming ring having an aiming ring center that is displaced along said marking line at a horizontal distance from said target ball contact point in a direction farther away from said target ball, said horizontal distance being equal to a radius of said cue ball (item 17, fig’s 1 and 2; column 3 lines 50-60; again note that being “displaced...at a horizontal distance from said target ball contact point” appears to simply be an intended use as the device could be placed here), E. said aiming ring center providing a shooting line toward which a center of said cue ball is directed toward said aiming ring center for said cue ball to strike said target ball and propel said target ball toward said target (fig. 2; note this is mostly intended use language that does not add structure to the claims);
(Claim 2) wherein said aiming ring is vertically displaced below said cue ball final location (fig. 2 and column 1 lines 63-68, again this is an intended use);
(Claim 3) wherein said aiming ring is formed from a flat planar material having a thickness ranging from 0.001-0.010 inches (column 4 lines 9-11);
(Claim 4) wherein said flat planar material is a metal, plastic, composite, or paper (column 4 lines 20-22).
(Claim 6) further comprising a carpet region located below a portion of said target ball (fig’s 1 and 2, portions of items 11 / 14 / 18 intended to be located under target ball, column 4 lines 22-32; again note that “located below...” is intended use language);
(Claim 7) wherein a portion of said carpet region makes contact with said target ball (fig. 2, column 1 lines 63-68, again, this appears to be an intended use that does not add structure to the claims).
In Reference to Claims 16-19
Josenhans teaches (Claim 16) An aiming tool for directing a cue ball from a cue ball initial location on a billiards table to a cue ball final location on a billiards table to strike a target ball and propel said target ball towards a target, said aiming tool comprising, A. an aiming ring that is circular and extends in a horizontal plane (item 12, fig’s 1 and 2), said aiming ring being vertically displaced from said cue ball final position (fig. 2, also note this is an intended use), said aiming ring being located proximate to said target ball with an aiming ring center located a horizontal distance from a center of said target ball equal to a diameter of said cue ball (column 3 lines 48-60), B. said aiming ring having a marking line directed toward said target (item 16 aligned with item 15 and 18, fig’s 1 and 2, column 3 lines 22-40), C. said aiming ring providing a shooting line for a center of said cue ball towards said aiming ring center (item 17, fig’s 1 and 2, line from cue to 17 shown as 29 in fig. 2), whereby contact of said cue ball in said cue ball final location with said target ball propels said target ball towards said target (fig. 2, also note this is mostly intended use language).
(Claim 17) wherein said aiming ring is displaced below said cue ball final location (fig. 2 and column 1 lines 63-68, again this is an intended use);
(Claim 18) further comprising a flat horizontal carpet, said flat horizontal carpet being located below a portion of said target ball (fig’s 1 and 2, portions of items 11 / 14 / 18 intended to be located under target ball, column 4 lines 22-32; again note that “located below...” is intended use language);
(Claim 19) whereby said flat horizontal carpet makes contact with a portion of said target ball (fig. 2, column 1 lines 63-68, again, this appears to be an intended use that does not add structure to the claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5, 8-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josenhans in view of Fontaine (US Patent No. 4,268,033).
In Reference to Claim 5
Josenhans teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Josenhans further teaches (Claim 5) wherein said aiming ring is circular having an aiming ring diameter that is [similar] to a cue ball diameter (fig. 2 item 12, column 3 lines 48-60).
Josenhans does not specifically disclose the diameter of the ring.
Fontaine teaches an aiming ring having a diameter that is equal to a cue / pool ball diameter (column 2 lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aiming guide of Josenhans with the feature of making the diameter of the ring equal to a cue ball diameter as taught by the aiming guide of Fontaine for the purpose of providing a more accurate visual representation of the cue ball aiming location as taught by Fontaine (column 1 lines 30-38), making the device more precise, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the diameter of the aiming ring the same as the diameter of a cue ball simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that reciting relative dimensions which would not perform differently than the dimensions of the prior art device is not a patentable advance. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Since Josenhans specifically teaches that the device is dimensioned to be used specifically with the diameters of pool balls (column 3 lines 48-60), so that, when placed, the center of the aiming ring is aligned with the center of a cue ball final location spaced precisely for contact with a target ball, merely making the outer diameter of the ring any specific dimension would not change this operation, therefore, this is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claims 8-12
Josenhans teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
It is noted here that many of the recitations in claims 8-12 are intended uses. Since the device of Josenhans could be disposed above a pool ball, much of these recitations are technically met in Josenhans. However, for the purposes of this action, it is assumed that applicant is intending to recite some structure that supports the device above a pool ball.
Fontaine teaches (Claim 8) wherein [an] aiming ring is vertically displaced above [a] cue ball final location (item 12, fig. 1);
(Claim 9) wherein said aiming ring is held above said cue ball final location such that said cue ball can roll below said aiming ring without contacting said aiming ring (fig. 1; column 2 lines 53-57);
(Claim 10) further comprising a cover located above a portion of said target ball (item 20, fig. 1);
(Claim 11) wherein said cover is attached to support members that hold a portion of said cover above said target ball (items 22 and 24, fig. 1);
(Claim 12) wherein said cover holds said aiming ring above said cue ball final location (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aiming guide of Josenhans with the feature of suspending the device above the pool balls as taught by the aiming guide of Fontaine for the purpose of allowing the device to be used without any surface interference with the balls as taught by Fontaine (fig. 1, column 2 lines 53-57), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
In Reference to Claims 13-15
Josenhans teaches (Claim 13) An aiming tool to assist a billiards player for directing a cue ball from a cue ball initial location on a billiards table to a cue ball final location where said cue ball is able to contact a target ball and propel the target ball toward a target comprising, A. an aiming ring that is flat and circular (item 12, fig’s 1 and 2), said aiming ring being vertically displaced from a cue ball final location (fig’s 1 and 2, unclear what is attempting to be claimed here, this appears to simply be an intended use for the device but is not a structural recitation), said aiming ring having an aiming ring diameter [similar] to a cue ball diameter (fig. 2 item 12, column 3 lines 48-60), B. a marking line along at least a portion of a diameter of said aiming ring (item 16 aligned with item 15 and 18, fig’s 1 and 2, column 3 lines 22-40), said marking line being directed toward said target (fig. 2, also note this appears to simply be an intended use), C. an aiming ring contact point that is located along a perimeter of said of said aiming ring, said aiming ring contact point residing on said marking line or an extension of said marking line (point equidistant between centers of items 17 and 14, fig’s 1 and 2, column 3 lines 48-60), said aiming ring contact point being displaced directly below a target ball contact point located within a target ball vertical equator, said target ball vertical equator forming a plane that passes through said target (fig. 2 and column 3 lines 48-60, also note this appears to be an intended use), D. whereby said aiming ring does not interfere with a travel direction of said cue ball in traveling from an initial position on a billiards table along a shooting line directing said cue ball across said cue ball diameter toward said aiming ring across said aiming ring diameter to contact said target ball and propel said target ball toward said target (column 4 lines 9-32, intended to be sufficiently thin and have similar characteristics to that of a pool table so as not to interfere with the travel of the pool balls);
(Claim 14) further comprising a flat horizontal carpet that extends horizontally below a portion of said target ball (fig’s 1 and 2, portions of items 11 / 14 / 18 intended to be located under target ball, column 4 lines 22-32; again note that “extends horizontally below...” is intended use language);
(Claim 15) wherein said flat horizontal carpet makes contact with said target ball (fig. 2, again this is merely an intended use).
Josenhans does not specifically disclose the diameter of the ring.
Fontaine teaches an aiming ring having a diameter that is equal to a cue / pool ball diameter (column 2 lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aiming guide of Josenhans with the feature of making the diameter of the ring equal to a cue ball diameter as taught by the aiming guide of Fontaine for the purpose of providing a more accurate visual representation of the cue ball aiming location as taught by Fontaine (column 1 lines 30-38), making the device more precise, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the diameter of the aiming ring the same as the diameter of a cue ball simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that reciting relative dimensions which would not perform differently than the dimensions of the prior art device is not a patentable advance. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Since Josenhans specifically teaches that the device is dimensioned to be used specifically with the diameters of pool balls (column 3 lines 48-60), so that, when placed, the center of the aiming ring is aligned with the center of a cue ball final location spaced precisely for contact with a target ball, merely making the outer diameter of the ring any specific dimension would not change this operation, therefore, this is simply a matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 20
Josenhans teaches all of claim 16 as discussed above.
It is noted here that since the device of Josenhans could be disposed above a pool ball, the recitations of claim 20 are technically met in Josenhans. However, for the purposes of this action, it is assumed that applicant is intending to recite some structure that supports the device above a pool ball.
Fontaine teaches (Claim 20) whereby [an] aiming ring is displaced above [a] cue ball final location (item 12, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aiming guide of Josenhans with the feature of suspending the device above the pool balls as taught by the aiming guide of Fontaine for the purpose of allowing the device to be used without any surface interference with the balls as taught by Fontaine (fig. 1, column 2 lines 53-57), making the device more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose inventions similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711