Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/517,367

SPORTS BALL WITH IMPROVED WATER RESISTANCE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 22, 2023
Examiner
KIM, EUGENE LEE
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
19%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 19% of cases
19%
Career Allow Rate
19 granted / 98 resolved
-50.6% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+34.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
129
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 98 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurman (20180200583) in view of Cooper (Pat No. 5,997,422). Thurman (US 2018/0200583) in view of Cooper (US 5,997,422). Regarding claim 1, Thurman discloses a ball construction comprising an inflatable bladder (14), a plurality of exterior, stitched together panels sewn at their edges (24, 26, 28, 30; paragraph [0117]) and one or more layers between the panels and the bladder. Note Figure 7C and paragraph [0119]. Thurman teaches that the layers comprise an outermost layer of fabric material (50) and an innermost layer of rubber (52). However, Thurman does not particularly state that the rubber is waterproof material. Cooper reveals that it is known in the art of football construction to use rubber material for the football that has waterproof properties. Note column 2, lines 35-47 stating that the rubber material is waterproof and has desirable flexible properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the innermost layer of rubber of Thurman as a nonporous synthetic rubber material in order to provide a layer that does not absorb water during use. The examiner is interpreting the limitation “film” using BRI. A film is being interpreted as a thin layer the covers a surface so that the rubber material in the proposed combination comprises a film as claimed. Regarding claim 2, Thurman teaches the claimed structure. Note Figure 7C and paragraph [0119]. Here, Thurman provides a first layer comprising an outermost layer of fabric material (40) and an innermost layer of rubber material (52) and a second layer comprising an outermost layer of fabric material (50) and an innermost layer of rubber material (52). Regarding claim 6, note Figure 7C of Thurman showing a layer of foam (48) beneath the stitched together panels (38). Regarding the limitation for the foam to be directly beneath the panels, note paragraph [0119] stating that the lining (40) can be removed entirely. Thus, Thurman teaches that the layer of foam (48) is directly beneath the stitched together panels. Regarding claim 7, note Figure 7B and paragraph [0119] teaching a winding layer (46) disposed over the bladder. Paragraph [0119] states that the football surrounding the bladder (14) takes the form of any combination of an outermost layer, a lining, one or more layers of padding, a winding layer, one or more fabric layers and one or more layers of elastomeric material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the football of Figure 7C with the winding layer disposed over the bladder in order to further strengthen the construction of the football. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurman (2018/0200583) in view of Cooper (US 5,997,422) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 and further in view Crowley (US 2,688,488). Regarding claim 3, Thurman teaches layers of fabric material (50) disposed over the bladder (14). However, Thurman lacks the teaching for the ribbon as recited. Crowley teaches that it is known in the art of football construction to form a layer of fabric tape (32) impregnated with vulcanized rubber. This tape layer defines a layer of waterproof ribbon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the fabric layer of Thurman using waterproof ribbon as taught by Crowley in order to reinforce the football using a known material for the fabric layer. Note column 1, lines 49-55 of Crowley. Regarding claim 4, Thurman teaches that it is known in the art of football construction to provide a winding layer (46) disposed directly over the bladder. Note Figure 7B. Further, note paragraph [0119] of Thurman stating that the invention contemplates the construction of the football surrounding the bladder taking the form of any combination of an outermost layer, a lining, one or more layers of padding, a winding layer, one or more fabric layers and one or more layers of elastomeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ball of Figure 7C with the layer of windings in order to further reinforce the bladder of the football. Regarding claim 5, the football as taught by the combination teaches the incorporation of the layers together to define the football. Thus, the combination teaches the incorporation of the thread and the layer of waterproof ribbon. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurman in view of Cooper as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 7 above, and further in view of Lo (20080263867). The modified Thurman does not specifically disclose the film to be selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane, polyurethane and combinations thereof. As discussed supra, Cooper discloses the use of rubber to promote waterproof properties. Lo teaches a sports ball that has a bladder 7 with a film 5 (paragraph 8) wrapped around the bladder. Film 5 is made from thermoplastic material (paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the rubber covering material of the modified Thurman with the thermoplastic film layer of Lo to use preferred materials based on the suitability of intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and in re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) where it is was found that the selection of known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 5/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As shown above, the use of a thermoplastic film that surrounds a bladder is known in the art as taught by reference Lo. The actual intended use of the film has no bearing on patentability as the applicant needs to define over the prior art with structural limitations and not functional limitations. In this case, Lo shows the structural limitations of having a thermoplastic film surrounding a bladder so that the structural limitations are shown by the combined references. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm. 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. 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. /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 22, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 16, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
May 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 20, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582877
Structurally reinforced pickleball
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569739
BASEBALL PITCHER TRAINING METHOD AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12553193
SELF-COOLING ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEM WITH WATER RETENTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544633
GOLF CLUB HEAD HAVING FACE REINFORCING STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12502621
ANIMATED FIGURE WALKING MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
19%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (+34.6%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 98 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month