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 § 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 –
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Pitre (US 7959527). Regarding claim 1, Pitre discloses training apparatus, comprising: a base (15); a shaft (4) connected to the base (15); an arm (19) rotatably connected to the shaft to spin around a substantially vertical axis (col. 2, lines 39-43); a flexible connector (30) connected to the arm (figure 2); and a ball (42) connected to the flexible connector (figure 2).
Regrading claim 2, the shaft being vertical is shown in (figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, the band being an elastic band is shown at (col. 3, lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 5, the ball being attached through a hole in the middle is shown in (figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, the flexible connector being a rope is shown at (col. 3, lines 29-31)
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitre (US 7959527) in view of Woods (US 20090233736).
Regarding claim 4, although Pitre discloses the use of a telescoping arm where the telescoping portions (inside portion 21 and outside portion 25) are adjustable via a clamping member (28), the reference fails to note that the outside portion would have holes and the inside portion would have a part sticking out as the adjustment mechanism.
Woods discloses a training device much like that of Pitre which further teaches that it is known to employ a telescoping adjustment mechanism where an outside portion of an arm would have holes and the inside portion would have a part sticking out (spring loaded locking pin) to adjust the length (paragraph 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have utilized the a telescoping adjustment mechanism where an outside portion of an arm would have holes and the inside portion would have a part sticking out (spring loaded locking pin) to adjust the length as the adjustment mechanism in Pitre for the purpose of providing a quick, simple, secure and cost effective adjustment mechanism in the telescoping arm of Pitre. Additionally, replacing one type of known telescoping fastening/connection system for another known fastening/connection system is an obvious substitution of one known element for another and would be expected to yield predictable results of a telescoping quick, simple and secure connection allowing for easy adjustment of arm length.
Regarding claim 6, Pitre does not explicitly states the type of ball utilized in their training system. However, Woods teaches that it is known to use a variety of balls including baseballs and tennis balls depending on which sport/hitting is being practiced (paragraphs 35 and 50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize either one of a baseball or tennis ball with the system of Pitre for the purpose of mimicking the ball in a specific hitting practice for a particular sport.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRY SUHOL whose telephone number is (571)272-4430. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday - Friday 8am-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.
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715