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 .
Examiner’s Comment
Claims 2 and 3, noted as “withdrawn” have been incorporated into Claim 1 by applicant’s amendment. Claims 2 and 3 are canceled.
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) 1-5, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,437,261, in view of Hart, U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0193520. As to Claim 1, Paulson teaches a multi-wheel serving machine (ball pitching device) comprising a support frame (70, 72) and a mounting base (58, 62) which may be provided on the support frame, Col. 3, ln. 3-13. A serving member (feed tube and associated wheel assembly) may be provided on the mounting base, the serving member being provided with a serving channel (10) and a plurality of openings (20) connecting with the serving channel on an outer wall of the serving member, Col. 3, ln. 14-22 and 30-32. A plurality of serve driving components (22, 24, 26, 28) may be provided around the outer wall of the serving member and disposed in one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of the openings respectively, Col. 2, ln. 36-40 and see Figure 3. Serve driving components may include serving wheels (22, 24) extending into the serving channel at least partially from an opening and a serving position may be formed among peripheral walls of the wheels, Col. 3, ln. 29-34 and see Figure 3, noting serving position between periphery of facing wheels. Paulson teaches that the serve driving component may comprise a mounting bracket (30, 32) and a driving unit (26, 28), the driving unit being disposed on an outer wall of the serving member, the driving unit being disposed on the mounting bracket, and the output end (rotary output shaft) of the driving unit connected to the serving wheels, Col. 2, ln. 38-43 and see Figure 3. Paulson is silent as to an adjusting base associated with the serve driving component. Hart teaches a multi-wheel serving machine (6), paragraph 0094. Hart teaches driving units (8) adjustably mounted so as to move with respect to a mounting bracket (motor mounting plate) in a direction closer to or farther away from serving position when adjusted for adjusting the distance among a plurality of serving wheels, paragraphs 0070 and 0085. It is inherent that an adjusting base is present, given that the motor and attached wheel is adjustably movable with respect to the mounting bracket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson with an adjusting base, as taught by Hart, to provide Paulson with capability for adjusting the distance among serving wheels to yield the predictable result of facilitating the process of adjusting the machine to accommodate different size balls. As to Claim 4, Hart teaches adjusting slots may be provided in the mounting bracket and locking members (dowel pins) passing through mounting holes and adjusting slots for locking and unlocking the adjusting base and being capable of moving the adjusting base in a direction closer to or farther away from the serving position when the adjusting base is loosened, paragraph 0085 and see Figure 16. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with mounting holes and adjusting slots to pass through locking members with the locking members configured for locking and unlocking the adjusting base, as taught by Hart, to provide Paulson, as modified, with a known substitute mechanical arrangement for adjustably mounting drive units at an adjustable distance from a serving position. As to Claim 5, Paulson teaches that the serving member may be rotatably disposed on the mounting base, Col. 2, ln. 58 – Col. 3, ln. 9. As to Claim 7, Paulson teaches a locking component (60) capable of use to lock or loosen the serving member and adjust positions of the serving driving components when the serving member is loosened, Col. 6, ln. 64 – Col. 7, ln. 1. As to Claim 9, Paulson teaches a support tube (64) vertically provided at top of the support frame and a rotating tube (58) provided at bottom of the mounting base, Col. 3, ln. 3-9 and see Figure 1. The rotating tube may be rotatably connected to the support tube, Col. 3, ln. 3-9 and see Figure 1.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view of Hart, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Kim U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0182394. Paulson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 6, Paulson teaches a ball outlet tube (10’) and a ball inlet tube (12) arranged in coaxial manner, Col. 2, ln. 27-30 and see Figure 1. The serving member may be a serving tube (10) with ends of the serving channel, the ball outlet tube being connected to an outlet end of the serving channel and the ball inlet tube being rotatably connected to the inlet end of the serving channel, Col. 2 ln. 30-32 and see Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with inlet tube and outlet tube connected to inlet and outlet ends of the serving channel respectively with the inlet tube being rotatably connected, as taught by Hart, to provide Paulson, as modified, with a rotatable serving member connected to a stationary inlet tube to yield the predictable result of enabling gravity feeding of balls when the serving member is in a rotated orientation. Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the outlet tube may also be rotatably connected to the serving member and except for arranging the ball inlet and outlet tubes on opposite ends of the mounting base. Kim teaches a multi-wheel serving machine (ball pitching device) having ball inlet (220) and ball outlet (210) tubes on opposite ends of a mounting base (100, 500), paragraphs 0049 and 0050 and see Figure 3. The ball outlet tube may be rotatably connected to an outlet end of a serving member, paragraph 0062. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with inlet and outlet tubes on opposite ends of mounting base and with the outlet tube being rotatably connected, as taught by Kim, to provide Paulson, as modified, with a known substitute mounting configuration.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view Hart, and in further view of Boehner, U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0261362. Paulson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 8, Paulson teaches a plate (54) provided with a slot (82) and a screw (80) passing through the slot, Col. 7, ln. 17-25, but Paulson, as modified, does not disclose that the mechanical linkage may be configured with an arc-shaped slot around an axis of the serving member. Boehner teaches a multi-wheel serving machine (100) comprising a mounting base (105) having an arc-shaped slot (205) around an axis of a serving member (120), noting spin axis slot, paragraph 0023 and see Figure 1. An adjustment plate (125) may be provided with a through hole (615) with integral second nut and with a second screw (605, 610), paragraph 0023 and see Figure 6. The second screw may pass through the arc-shaped slot and through hole in sequence to be in threaded connection with the second nut. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with the adjustable mechanical linkage configured with an arc-shaped slot around axis of serving member and secured by a screw passing through the slot into a through hole, as taught by Boehner, to provide Paulson, as modified, with a known substitute mechanical linkage. Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for reversing the locations of the through-hole and arc-shaped slot as to the mounting base and adjustment plate and except for providing an integral nut and through hole instead of separate components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the locations of the through-hole and arc-shaped slot since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the through-hole and nut as separate components since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view of Hart, and in further view of Boehner, U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0109510. Paulson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 10, Paulson, as modified, is silent as to a base plate having two support plates disposed on the support frame. Boehner teaches a multi-wheel serving machine (101), paragraph 0023. The machine may comprise a support frame (1, 25), paragraph 0023. A base plate (5) may be disposed on the support frame and two support plates (6, 29) may be symmetrically disposed on the base plate, paragraph 0023 and see Figure 1. The lower end of a mounting base (28) may be rotatably connected to two support plates via a pivot point (44), paragraph 0026 and see Figure 4A, suggesting that a rotating shaft establishes the pivot point. The lower end of the mounting member may be provided with an arc-shaped long slot (38) around the pivot point and a supporting plate may be provided with a fourth screw (45) having a screw rod passing through the arc-shaped slot and in threaded connection with a fourth nut (4), paragraph 0026 and see Figure 4A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with support plates symmetrically disposed on a base plate of a support frame and in pivoting connection to the mounting base via a rotating shaft and arc-shaped slot receiving a screw, as taught and suggested by Boehner to provide Paulson, as modified, with a known substitute mounting for a rotatable mounting base. Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for reversing the locations of the arc-shaped slot and screw and except for providing a second duplicate arc-shaped slot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the locations of the screw and arc-shaped slot since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, supra. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before he effective filing date to provide a duplicate second arc-shaped slot 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
In response to applicant's argument that combining the mechanism for moving driving units closer or farther away from serving position, of Hart, with the serving machine of Paulson would require inventive skill, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner maintains the position that the cited references teach multi-wheel serving machines and that the teaching of Hart providing an adjustable spacing between wheel, at the serving position, combined with the teaching of Paulson, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the same feature in a serving machine of Paulson.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 30 June 2026
Prosecution Insights