DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 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.
After claim 13 the claim numberings appear to repeat with claim 1-7 creating duplicate claims. It is assumed that the claims should read 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cyr (US 6045450 A) in view of Freedenberg (US 5597360 A) and Roe (US 4120494 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cyr teaches 1. A billiards aiming device comprising: a first aiming spot comprised of: a center opening; See Fig. 1 which shows the prior art targeting disk with a center opening., a first deflection adjustment ring; See Fig. 1 noting the multiple circles around the central opening which may be considered the adjustment ring., a rail aiming adjustment line; and See Fig. 1 noting the angled lines extending from the center opening on the left side which may be considered the correction arc.
Roe does teach what the primary reference is silent on including an adhesive. See 2:9+.
Freedenberg does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a first degree ruling; See Fig. 5; (19) which may be considered a degree ruling., a cut-induced throw correction arc; See Fig. 5; (42B) which may be considered the cut inducted throw correction arc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Cyr with Roe to allow the aiming device to grip the table. (See Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Cyr with Freedenberg to provide means to determine proper aiming while playing billiards such as the fraction of an object ball that is eclipsed by the cue ball (See 2:66+).
Regarding claim 2, Cyr teaches 2. The billiards aiming device of claim 1, wherein the first aiming spot is connected to a second aiming spot. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, Cyr teaches 3. The billiards aiming device of claim 1, wherein the center opening supports a billiard ball 0.0015 inches or less above a playing surface of a billiards table. See Fig. 1; 1:21+; 2:54+ The examiner notes that the thickness and the resulting ball height is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Cyr with the explicit dimensions as claimed to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 4, Freedenberg teaches 4. The billiards aiming device of claim 1, wherein the first aiming spot is comprised of a second degree ruling spaced at 2.5, 5, or 10 degrees from the first degree ruling. See Fig. 5; (19); 2:66+ which shows multiple rulings spaced apart. As described in 2:66+ the markings are part of a scale which implies the spacing variable is a known result effective variable. The examiner notes that the degrees ruling spacing is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Freedenberg with the explicit spacing as claimed to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Cyr with Freedenberg to provide means to determine proper aiming while playing billiards such as the fraction of an object ball that is eclipsed by the cue ball (See 2:66+).
Regarding claim 5, Cyr teaches 5. The billiards aiming device of claim 1, wherein the first aiming spot is comprised of a second deflection adjustment ring spaced at .05 inches edge-to-edge from the first deflection adjustment ring. See Fig. 1 which shows the two concentric rings at the center of each aiming spot. The examiner notes that the ring spacing is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Cyr with the explicit ring spacing as claimed to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, Cyr teaches 6. A billiards aiming device comprising: a first aiming spot comprised of: a center opening; See Fig. 1 which shows the prior art targeting disk with a center opening., a first deflection adjustment ring; and See Fig. 1 noting the multiple circles around the central opening which may be considered the adjustment ring., a rail aiming adjustment line; See Fig. 1 noting the angled lines extending from the center opening on the left side which may be considered the correction arc., an alignment tool comprised of: a ball opening a cutout; See Fig. 1 wherein the two center circles on the left and right side may be considered the ball opening(s) and the cutout is the opening in the center connecting the two center circles., a rounded exterior corner; See Fig. 1 which shows a rounded exterior corner., a smooth edge; and See Fig. 1 noting the top straight line edge which is a smooth edge., an alignment line. See Fig. 1 noting the vertical lines that extend from the center holes which may be considered alignment lines.
Freedenberg does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a first degree ruling; a cut-induced throw correction arc; See Fig. 5; (19)(42B) which (19) may be considered a degree ruling and (42B) which may be considered the cut inducted throw correction arc.
Roe does teach what the primary reference is silent on including an adhesive See 2:9+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Cyr with Freedenberg to provide means to determine proper aiming while playing billiards such as the fraction of an object ball that is eclipsed by the cue ball (See 2:66+). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Cyr with Roe to allow the aiming device to grip the table. (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Cyr teaches 7. The billiards aiming device of claim 6, wherein the first aiming spot is connected to a second aiming spot. See Fig. 1 which shows a left and right aiming spot connected.
Regarding claim 8, Cyr teaches 8. The billiards aiming device of claim 6, wherein the center opening supports a billiard ball 0.0015 inches or less above a playing surface of a billiards table. See Fig. 1; 1:21+; 2:54+ The examiner notes that the thickness and the resulting ball height is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Cyr with the explicit dimensions as claimed to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Freedenberg teaches 9. The billiards aiming device of claim 6, wherein the first aiming spot is comprised of a second degree ruling spaced at 2.5, 5, or 10 degrees from the first degree ruling. See Fig. 5; (19); 2:66+ which shows multiple rulings spaced apart. As described in 2:66+ the markings are part of a scale which implies the spacing variable is a known result effective variable. The examiner notes that the degrees ruling spacing is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Freedenberg with the explicit spacing as claimed to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Cyr with Freedenberg to provide means to determine proper aiming while playing billiards such as the fraction of an object ball that is eclipsed by the cue ball (See 2:66+).
Regarding claim 10, Cyr teaches 10. The billiards aiming device of claim 6, wherein the first aiming spot is comprised of a second deflection adjustment ring spaced at .05 inches edge-to-edge from the first deflection adjustment ring. See Fig. 1 which shows the two concentric rings at the center of each aiming spot. The examiner notes that the ring spacing is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Cyr with the explicit ring spacing as claimed to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Cyr teaches 11. The billiards aiming device of claim 6, wherein the center cutout is comprised of a rectangular shape and is positioned in a center of the alignment tool. See Fig. 1 noting the center opening connecting the two center circles which is rectangular shaped and position in the center as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Cyr teaches 12. The billiards aiming device of claim 6, wherein the ball opening supports a billiards ball 0.0045 inches above a playing surface of a billiards table. See Fig. 1; 1:21+; 2:54+ The examiner notes that the thickness and the resulting ball height is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Cyr with the explicit dimensions as claimed to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Black US 20060166752 A1 - which teaches an aiming device for billiards.
Bigelow US 20240050838 A1 - which teaches a cue spot aim trainer.
Bonney US 4178694 - which teaches a point of aim indicator.
Sparacio US D952088 S - which teaches a reversible billiards aiming tool.
Fang CN 2354107 Y - which teaches a billiard aiming gauge.
Sha CN 2936348 Y - which teaches aiming device common for billiards.
Rowland GB 2323795 A - which teaches ball potting practice device.
Daron GB 2578130 A - which teaches an aiming device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711