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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of Claims 7 and 17 are included in Claims 1 and 13 respectively, from which Claims 7 and 17 respectively depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0312723, in view of Watanabe, U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0154085, and in further view of Leith, U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0111418. As to Claim 1, Lu teaches a coupling insert (60) for securing a launch wheel (20) to an object throwing apparatus, paragraphs 0018 and 0020. The coupling insert may comprise a circumferential wall defining a cylinder having a center hole extending between a first end and a second end, the center hole being configured to receive a first portion of a motor shaft (32) therethrough, paragraph 0020 and see Figure 3. The coupling insert may have a coupling surface extending partially along an outside surface of the circumferential wall and configured to enable a secure attachment of a wheel frame of the launch wheel to the coupling insert during a forming process of the wheel frame, paragraph 0020 and see Figure 3, noting that the coupling insert may be formed in the wheel body. The cylinder may extend through a center aperture of the launch wheel with a longitudinal axis extending through a width of the launch wheel, see drawing below. Lu teaches that a first coupling mechanism (66, 68) may be disposed at an end of the coupling insert, exterior to the center aperture of the launch wheel, and configured to secure the coupling insert to a portion of the motor shaft, paragraph 0020. The examiner finds that the ends of the coupling insert and motor shaft may be considered to be first ends. Lu does not disclose that the first coupling mechanism may comprise a first screw. Watanabe teaches a coupling mechanism (bolt and screw hole 16) comprising a circumferential wall defining a cylinder having a center hole, paragraph 0020 and see Figure 2. A first screw (bolt) may be disposed within a first screw hole (16), paragraph 0035 and see Figure 2. The first screw hole may extend laterally through the cylinder along a first chord, being configured to secure a coupling insert (1) to a shaft upon tightening the screw, paragraph 0035, noting that the screw hole extends across the cylinder spaced from a diameter and a second slit may be compressed to fix the coupling insert to a shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu with a coupling mechanism comprising a screw disposed in a screw hole arranged as claimed and as taught by Watanabe, to provide Lu with a known substitute coupling mechanism. Lu teaches a second coupling mechanism disposed at the second end exterior to the center aperture of the launch wheel, and configured to further secure the coupling insert to the first portion of the motor shaft, see drawing below. Lu, as modified, does not disclose that the second coupling mechanism may be configured as a duplicate of the first coupling mechanism of Lu as modified by Watanabe, discussed above and including the same features arranged in the same way. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu, as modified with a second coupling mechanism configured as taught by Watanabe, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Lu teaches that the coupling insert may have a coupling surface to allow secure attachment to the wheel frame during the forming process, as discussed above, and Lu teaches that the coupling surface may be disposed between the first and second coupling mechanisms and configured to engage the launch wheel within the center aperture. Lu, as modified, is silent as to knurling. Leith teaches an axle assembly wherein a coupling surface (end) of a shaft, which is connected to a flange, may be provided with knurling, paragraph 0019 and see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide knurling on the coupling surface of Lu, as taught by Leith, to provide Lu, as modified, with a roughened coupling surface at the location of engagement, namely between the coupling mechanisms and within the center aperture, to yield the predictable result of a non-slip connection between the launch wheel and the coupling insert.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 4 and 14, Lu teaches that the portion of the coupling insert between ends is fitted within the wheel frame and comprises the coupling surface, see Figure 3. It follows that the coupling surface is centrally located between first and second ends. As to Claims 6 and 16, Watanabe teaches that a first coupling mechanism may include a first lateral slit (12) extending radially inward through the circumferential wall and a first longitudinal slit (14) extending through the circumferential wall between a first end and the first lateral slit, paragraph 0026 and see Figure 2. The slits define first and second deflectable arms, with the first screw hole extending through the first and second deflectable arms, paragraphs 0027 and 0035, noting that the longitudinal slit may be compressed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu with first and second slits configured as claimed and as taught by Watanabe, to provide Lu with a coupling mechanism configured to deflect first and second arms to secure the coupling insert to the motor shaft. As to Claims 7 and 17, Watanabe is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. As to Claims 9 and 19, Watanabe is applied as in Claim 6, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, the case law applied in Claim 7 is found to applicable with regard to the duplication of the claimed coupling mechanism. As to Claim 10, Lu teaches a launch wheel system (20) for an object throwing apparatus, paragraph 0018. The wheel system may comprise a wheel frame (22) and a tire (24) coupled to the wheel frame, paragraph 0018 and see Figure 3. A coupling insert (60) may be coupled with the wheel frame at the center, paragraph 0020 and see Figure 3. Lu, as modified by Watanabe, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Watanabe and Leith, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Todd et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,789,445. Lu, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 2 and 12, Lu teaches a contact surface (66) configured to butt up against a part of the motor shaft (68) when the coupling insert is secured to the motor shaft, paragraph 0020 and see Figure 4, noting that the inside of engaging slot (66) butts against the transverse pin (68) when the coupling insert is secured to the motor shaft. Lu, as modified, does not disclose a shoulder. Todd teaches a wheel retained on a shaft, see Abstract. A coupling mechanism of a coupling insert of the wheel may include a shoulder contact surface configured to butt up against a shoulder of the shaft wherein the shoulder may be disposed between a first lesser diameter portion of the shaft and a second greater diameter portion of the shaft, see drawing below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the coupling mechanism to include a shoulder contact surface butting a shoulder of a shaft configured as claimed and as taught by Todd, to provide Lu, as modified, with a known substitute wheel mounting arrangement.
PNG
media_image2.png
448
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5, 8, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Watanabe and Leith, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solomon, U.S. Patent No. 3,870,371. Lu, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 5 and 15, Lu, as modified, is silent as to a first smooth portion of the coupling insert extending along the outside surface of the circumferential wall between the first end and the coupling surface. Solomon teaches a wheel (10, 16, 20) mounted on a shaft (26), Col. 2, ln. 46-48 and see Figure 1. Solomon teaches that a coupling insert (32) may comprise a smooth portion extending along the outside of a circumferential wall between an end and a coupling surface and extending beyond a coupling mechanism (44), Col. 2, ln. 65 – Col. 3, ln. 8 and see Figures 1 and 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu, as modified, with a smooth portion of the circumferential wall arranged as claimed and as taught by Solomon, to provide Lu, as modified, with a known substitute arrangement of a smooth portion of the coupling insert between the coupling surface and the coupling mechanism. The examiner finds that the end may be considered to be a first end. Further, the examiner finds that the configuration of the first smooth portion to define a first shut-off interface does not patentably distinguish the inventive coupling insert from the coupling insert of prior art, because the prior art coupling insert is the same as or obvious from the inventive coupling insert. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113. As to Claims 8 and 18, Watanabe teaches that a smooth portion may extend inward from an end and beyond a coupling mechanism, along a circumferential surface, see Figure 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu, as modified, with a smooth portion inward of the coupling mechanism to provide Lu, as modified, with a known substitute arrangement of the coupling insert. Lu, as modified, does not specify that the smooth portion may extend between the second end and the coupling surface. Solomon is applied as in Claim 5, together with the case law applied in the treatment of Claim 7, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable as to the same configuration being present on a second end. Further, the examiner finds that the use of the smooth portion to define a shut-off interface does not patentably distinguish the claim, for the same reasoning applied above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Watanabe and Leith, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Richard, U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0016516. Lu, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 11, Lu teaches that the launch wheel may be formed of plastic, paragraph 0018, but Lu, as modified, is silent as to an injection molded plastic launch wheel. Richard teaches a launch wheel which may be formed via plastic injection molding, paragraph 0033. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an injection molded wheel, as taught by Richard, to provide Lu, as modified, with a known substitute type of launch wheel.
Claim(s) 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Watanabe, Leith, and Todd, and further in view of Vorozilchak, U.S. Patent No. 9,914,0441. As to Claim 23, Lu, as modified by Watanabe and Leith, is applied as in Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Further, Lu teaches installing a launch wheel (20) onto a motor shaft (32) of an object throwing apparatus, the motor shaft being disposed within a center hole (28) of a coupling insert (60), paragraph 0020, noting that the wheel can be engaged with the shaft. Lu does not disclose that first screw may be tightened. Watanabe teaches tightening a first screw (bolt) of a coupling mechanism (bolt and screw hole 15) of a coupling insert (1) to secure the coupling insert to a shaft (104) with the first screw extending along a first chord of the coupling insert, paragraphs 0028 and 0035. Watanabe is applied as in Claim 1 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu with a step of tightening a first screw configured as claimed and as taught by Watanabe, to provide Lu with a known substitute step for securing the coupling insert to the motor shaft. Lu, as modified, does not disclose a shoulder contact surface in contact with a shoulder surface of a motor shaft. Todd is applied as in Claim 2, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. Given that the shoulder contact surface of the coupling insert butts against the shoulder surface of the motor shaft, it is inherent that the components have been butted into the claimed relationship. Lu, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for indicating that arrangement of the launch wheel on the motor shaft may define a location of the launch wheel with respect to a ball-delivery ramp. Vorozilchak teaches an object throwing apparatus (hockey practice device). A launch wheel (70) may be coupled to a motor shaft, Col. 3, ln. 65-66 and see Figure 12. The position of the launch wheel on the motor shaft may define the location of the launch wheel with respect to a delivery ramp (50), see Figure 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu, as modified, with a delivery ramp positioned with respect to a launch wheel, as taught by Vorozilchak, to provide Lu, as modified, with a defined location of a launch wheel with respect to a ball ramp, to yield the predictable result of maintaining proper alignment for predictable launches. As to Claim 24, Lu teaches that a coupling mechanism (28, 68) may be adjacent a second portion of the motor shaft (portion nearest the motor), paragraph 0020 and see Figure 3. Todd teaches that the shoulder surface and the shoulder contact surface of the coupling insert may be adjacent a second portion of the motor shaft, see drawing above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lu, as modified, by Todd, as discussed in the treatment of Claim 2. It follows that the coupling mechanism may be disposed adjacent the shoulder contact surface. As to Claim 25, Watanabe is applied as in Claim 23 and Claim 1, with the same obviousness rationale being found appliable. The case law applied in Claims 1 and 10 is found to be equally applicable to support a finding of obviousness with regard to duplication of the step of tightening the second screw in a duplicate component. As to Claim 26, Lu, as modified by Watanabe, discloses a second coupling mechanism, as claimed, on a second side of the launch wheel, as discussed in the treatment of Claim 23. Vorozilchak teaches that a coupling mechanism (74) may be provided on each side of the launch wheel, Col. 6, ln. 51-54 and see Figures 10 and 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu, as modified, with a second coupling mechanism disposed on a side of the launch wheel opposite the shoulder contact surface as taught by Lu, Watanbe, and Vorozilchak, to provide Lu, as modified, with two coupling mechanisms to yield the predictable result of more secure coupling of the launch wheel. As to Claim 27, Lu, as modified by Watanabe, teaches that the coupling insert may be provided with a smooth outside circumferential surface extending longitudinally inward beyond a first coupling mechanism, as discussed in the treatment of Claim 8. Todd teaches that a coupling insert may have a shoulder contact surface, see drawing above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Lu, as modified, with the coupling insert with a shoulder contact surface, as taught by Todd, to provide Lu, as modified with the smooth outside circumferential surface extending longitudinally inward of the shoulder contact surface beyond the first coupling mechanism, as a known substitute arrangement of components. The same reasoning applied in Claim 5 is found to be equally applicable to support a finding that the smooth outside circumferential surface being configured to define a shut-off interface does not patentably distinguish the claim from prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Lu does not disclose a coupling insert defining a cylinder extending through a center aperture of a launch wheel, the examiner maintains the position that Lu teaches a launch wheel with a coupling insert (60) extending through a center aperture of a wheel. The coupling insert best seen in Figure 4 of Lu is a feature formed with the wheel and includes a broader portion appearing on the near side of the wheel in the drawing figure and a narrower portion appearing on the far side of the wheel. The cut portion of the coupling insert is cross hatched for better viewing and can be seen to have parts extending on each side of the wheel frame. The examiner maintains the position that, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the coupling insert can be considered as a cylinder in a center aperture of the wheel and having a center hole to receive a motor shaft.
With regard to applicant’s argument that convex ribs disclosed in Lu are not a part of a cylinder, the examiner maintains the position that the inner and outer ring-like portions of the coupling insert comprise the disclosed ribs. The inner rib forms a ring exterior to the wheel frame but aligned with and forming a part of the generally cylindrical portion of the coupling insert extending through the center aperture of the wheel, as seen in Figure 4. The inner rib includes a slot to receive a transverse pin rod (68) of the motor shaft and forms a first coupling mechanism on the coupling insert and exterior to the wheel frame. The presence of the outer rib does not overcome a rejection based on the disclosure of the claimed features.
In response to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not disclose knurling as claimed, the examiner maintains the position that the coupling insert formed as a part of the wheel may be considered to be secured within a center aperture of the wheel frame. Lu, as modified, by Watanabe, discloses a cylindrical coupling insert having first and second coupling mechanisms exteriorly disposed on each side of the wheel frame. The location at which the coupling insert is secured to the wheel frame is necessarily between the coupling mechanisms. The teaching Leith supports a finding of obviousness with regard to knurling at the point where parts are secured, namely the area between the coupling mechanisms.
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 JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 14 May 2026
Prosecution Insights