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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second secondary ball is a different size than said first secondary ball” as required in claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-16 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.
Claim 11 is vague and indefinite because claim 11 is dependent on claim 10 which recites “one or more secondary balls”, meaning there can be one ball. However, claim 11 recites “a plurality of said second balls”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. The claim may be amended to recite “wherein the one or more secondary balls are a plurality of balls”.
Claims 12, 13 and 15 are vague and indefinite because claim 12 is dependent on claim 10 which recites “one or more secondary balls”, meaning there can be one ball. However, claim 12 recites” each of said one or more secondary balls”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite since as required in claim 10 there only needs to be one secondary ball. The claims can be amended to depend on claim 11 or alternatively similar language (see above) can be used in the body of the claims.
Claim 16 is vague and indefinite because claim 16 is indirectly dependent on claim 10 (see comments made above). The claims as presented only require one secondary ball therefore, only one attachment aperture is required. The claim can be amended as suggested above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bobby (5,409,217).
Claim 1, Bobby discloses a multi-ball device, comprising:
a primary ball (tennis ball or spherical object 13); and
first and second secondary balls (12, 12) attached to said primary
ball (13).
Claim 2, Bobby shows said two secondary balls (tennis balls or spherical objects 12, 12) are attached on opposite sides of said primary ball (figure 3).
Claim 4, Bobby shows third and fourth secondary balls (tennis ball or spherical object tennis ball or spherical object 11, 11) attached to said primary ball (13).
Claim 6, Bobby shows said secondary balls (12, 12) are detachable from said primary ball(10, the balls are detachably positioned on the rods; figure 4).
Claim 7, Bobby shows said first and second secondary balls (12, 12) are replaceable/exchangeable on said primary ball with third and fourth secondary balls (11, 11).
It is noted:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (see MPEP 2114 [R-1] Apparatus and Article Claims - Functional Language).
Claim 8, Bobby shows said multi-ball is symmetric (figure 3).
Alternatively:
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones (2,269,941).
Claim 1, Jones discloses a multi-ball device (figure 1), comprising:
a primary ball (spherical body portion 7); and
first and second secondary balls (spherical body portions 9, 9) attached to said primary
ball (7).
Claim 2, Jones shows said two secondary balls (9, 9) are attached on opposite sides of said primary ball (figure 1).
Claim 3, Jones shows said secondary balls (9, 9) are smaller than said primary ball (figure 1 shows the secondary balls are smaller than the primary ball).
Claim 4, Jones shows third and fourth secondary balls (9, 9) attached to said primary ball (7).
Claim 5, Jones shows said secondary balls (9, 9) are arranged in a plane at quadrants of said primary ball (figure 1).
Claim 6, Jones shows said secondary balls (12, 12) are detachable from said primary ball(10, the balls are detachably positioned on the rods; figure 4).
Claim 7, Jones shows said first and second secondary balls (12, 12) are replaceable/exchangeable on said primary ball with third and fourth secondary balls (11, 11).
It is noted:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (see MPEP 2114 [R-1] Apparatus and Article Claims - Functional Language).
Claim 8, Jones shows said multi-ball is symmetric (figure 3).
Claim 9, Jones shows said multi-ball is asymmetric (figure 1 shows the balls are asymmetrical).
Claims 10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barth (5,743,808).
Claim 10, Barth discloses a multi-ball device, comprising:
a primary ball (10); and
one or more secondary balls (20) detachably attached to said primary ball (figure 1).
Claim 12, Barth shows said one or more secondary balls is attached to said primary ball by a threaded connector (figure 1).
Claim 13, Barth shows said primary ball (10) comprises an attachment aperture (figure 7) for said one or more secondary balls.
Claim 14, Barth shows said attachment apertures is a threaded aperture (the connecting means 30 is threaded on both ends and it is threadably received within the hole formed in the ball).
Claim 15, Barth shows said secondary ball (20) comprises a connector (30) for connection to a respective aperture of said primary ball (10).
Claim 16, Barth shows said attachment apertures (hole formed in the ball; figure 7) is a threaded aperture, and wherein each of said connectors is a threaded connector (the connecting means 30 is threaded on both ends and it is threadably received within the hole formed in the ball).
Claim 17, Barth shows said primary ball (10) comprises a symmetric arrangement of apertures (figure 1 shows the hole is symmetrical) for connection to said one or more secondary balls.
Alternatively:
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon (2,187,493).
Claim 10, Gordon discloses a multi-ball device (figure 1 or 2), comprising:
a primary ball (10 or 20); and
one or more secondary balls (13 or 23) detachably attached to said primary ball (10 or 20).
Claim 11, Gordon shows a plurality of said secondary balls (12 or 23).
Claim 12, Gordon shows said one or more secondary balls (13 or 23) is attached to said primary ball (10 or 20) by a threaded connector (figure 1).
Claim 13, Gordon shows said primary ball (10) comprises an attachment aperture (page 2, column 1, lines 55-59) for said one or more secondary balls (13 or 23).
Claim 14, Gordon shows said attachment apertures is a threaded aperture (figure 2, page 2, column 1, lines 55-59).
Claim 15, Gordon shows said secondary ball (13 or 23) comprises a connector (12 or 22) for connection to a respective aperture (11) of said primary ball (10 or 20).
Claim 16, Gordon shows said attachment apertures (11) is a threaded aperture (page 2, column 1, lines 55-59), and wherein each of said connectors (12 or 22) is a threaded connector (page 2, column 1, lines 55-59).
Claim 17, Gordon shows said primary ball (10 or 20) comprises a symmetric arrangement of apertures (figures 1 or 2) for connection to said one or more secondary balls (13 or 23).
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (2,187,493).
Claim 18, Gordon discloses a method, comprising:
removing a first secondary ball (13 or 23) from a primary ball (10 or 20); and
connecting a second secondary ball (13 or 23) to said primary ball in the place of said first secondary ball (13 or 23; Note: the secondary balls are removable and interchangeable.
Gordon discloses that the shape and size of the primary and secondary balls are not critical to the shown and disclosed shapes. Gordon does not expressly disclose substituting the first secondary ball with a different size second secondary ball. It is noted that the size of the primary and second balls have been given no criticality by the applicant (paragraph 0019 of the specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected any size ball to substitute for the secondary ball given that a change in size and shape is a matter of obvious design choice, therefore held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select.
Claim 19, Gordon shows said connection is a threaded connection (page 2, column 1, lines 55-59).
Claim 20, Gordon shows said threaded connection comprises a threaded connector of said secondary ball and an attachment aperture of said primary ball (as shown in figures 1 and 2, there are threads and apertures in both the primary and secondary balls).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Coleman et al (US2001/0031677A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thurs, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
07 March 2026