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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Part Numbers “800” and “802” are not shown in applicant’s drawings. Applicant’s specification (Para. 0051) discloses: “the ball 800 has at least one dimple 802 that was filled in with a material that is not the material comprising the composition of the ball 800”, however, figure 8 of applicant’s drawings does not show part numbers 800 and 802.
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. 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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in claim 7 lines 1-2 of “shell has a exterior coated with” should be changed to --shell has an exterior coated with--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6, 21, 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis (20140274465) in view of Bart (5399136).
Regarding claim 1, Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a sound reducing ball, comprising: a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030); and a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2) in the spherical hollow shell.
Francis does not teach at least one of the plurality of holes further comprises an intersecting hole and slot feature formed by a centerline of the slot intersecting a center of the hole.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “at least one of the plurality of holes further comprises an intersecting hole and slot feature formed by a centerline of the slot intersecting a center of the hole” is directed to the shape of the holes of the ball. Changing the shape of the holes of Francis would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Bart is being used to teach the claimed shape of the holes.
Bart teaches at least one of the plurality of holes further comprises an intersecting hole (Fig. 5, Part No. 26b) and slot feature (26a) formed by a centerline of the slot intersecting a center of the hole (26b) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Francis with at least one of the plurality of holes further comprises an intersecting hole and slot feature as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches each of the plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2) are aligned parallel to each other.
The modified Francis does not teach each of the plurality of holes further comprises where the slots intersecting the holes are aligned parallel to each other.
Bart teaches each of the plurality of holes further comprises where the slots intersecting the holes are aligned parallel to each other (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the slots intersecting the holes are aligned parallel to each other as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches each of the plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2) are aligned parallel to each other.
The modified Francis does not teach each of the plurality of holes further comprises where the slots are aligned parallel to each other.
Bart teaches each of the plurality of holes further comprises where the slots are aligned parallel to each other (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the slots are aligned parallel to each other as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2).
The modified Francis does not teach each of the plurality of holes further comprises a first and second hole where the slot connects the first and second holes.
Bart teaches each of the plurality of holes further comprises a first and second hole (Fig. 5, Part No. 26, 26b) where the slot (26a) connects the first and second holes (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the slot connects the first and second holes as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2).
The modified Francis does not teach at least one of the holes form a hole and slot feature where the slot is generally parallel to the equator of the spherical, hollow shell.
Bart teaches at least one of the holes form a hole and slot feature where the slot is generally parallel to the equator of the spherical, hollow shell (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the slot is generally parallel to the equator of the spherical, hollow shell as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2).
The modified Francis does not teach at least one of the holes form a hole and slot feature where the slot is generally perpendicular to the equator of the spherical, hollow shell.
Bart teaches at least one of the holes form a hole and slot feature where the slot is generally perpendicular to the equator of the spherical, hollow shell (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the slot is generally perpendicular to the equator of the spherical, hollow shell as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches at least one grommet (Fig. 3-4, Part No. 12) is inserted into at least one of the holes in the spherical, hollow shell (Para. 0032).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2) in the spherical hollow shell.
The modified Francis does not teach the hole and slot further comprises the slot having a longitudinal axis such that it intersects the center of the hole.
Bart teaches the hole and slot further comprises the slot having a longitudinal axis such that it intersects the center of the hole (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the slot having a longitudinal axis such that it intersects the center of the hole as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, Part No. 2) in the spherical hollow shell.
The modified Francis does not teach a centerline of the slot intersects the center of the hole.
Bart teaches a centerline of the slot intersects the center of the hole (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with a centerline of the slot intersects the center of the hole as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Regarding claim 31, Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a sound reducing ball, comprising: a spherical, hollow shell (Para. 0030); and a first hole and a second hole (Fig. 1, Part No. 2) located in the spherical, hollow shell.
Francis does not teach a centerline of a slot intersects a center of the first hole and a center of the second hole.
Bart teaches a centerline of a slot intersects a center of the first hole and a center of the second hole (See fig. 5) (Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Francis with a centerline of a slot intersects a center of the first hole and a center of the second hole as taught by Bart as a means of providing a perforated ball with slots extending from holes formed through a surface of the ball (Bart: Col. 5, Lines 42-59).
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart, further in view of McDermott (20230398413).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the shell has a exterior coated with a sound dampening compound.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the shell has a exterior coated with a sound dampening compound (Fig. 3, Part No. 38; Fig. 4, Part No. 50) (Para. 0054, 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the shell has a exterior coated with a sound dampening compound as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) compound.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) compound (Fig. 3, Part No. 38; Fig. 4, Part No. 50) (Para. 0054, 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the shell has a exterior coated with a sound dampening compound as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound (Para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (a thermoplastic rubber compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a rubber compound.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a rubber compound (Para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a rubber compound as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (a rubber compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and McDermott, further in view of Masutani (6048279).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a vulcanized polybutadiene compound.
Masutani (Figure 1) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a vulcanized polybutadiene compound (Col. 2, Lines 3-8; Col. 6, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a vulcanized polybutadiene compound as taught by Masutani as a means of using a known material (vulcanized polybutadiene compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and McDermott, further in view of Bedwell (7247107).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a foam compound.
Bedwell (Figure 1) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a foam compound (Col. 3, Lines 26-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a foam compound as taught by Bedwell as a means of using a known material (foam) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Bedwell: Col. 3, Lines 26-34).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and McDermott, further in view of Simonutti (20180264326).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a felt compound.
Simonutti teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a felt compound (Fig. 1, part No. 14) (Para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a felt compound as taught by Simonutti as a means of using a known material (felt) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Simonutti: Para. 0044).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart, further in view of Hayes (20150045152).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach a tape adheres to the exterior side of the spherical, hollow shell.
Hayes (Figures 1-5) teaches a tape (Fig. 1, Part No. 130) (Para. 0023-0024) adheres to the exterior side of the spherical, hollow shell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with a tape adheres to the exterior side of the spherical, hollow shell as taught by Hayes as a means of providing a ball with an outer layer formed of athletic tape (Hayes: Para. 0022-0023).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the tape further comprises a sound reducing tape material.
Hayes (Figures 1-5) teaches the tape (Fig. 1, Part No. 130) (Para. 0023-0024) further comprises a sound reducing tape material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the tape further comprises a sound reducing tape material as taught by Hayes as a means of providing a ball with an outer layer formed of athletic tape (Hayes: Para. 0022-0023).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Hayes, further in view of Smith (20120142464).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the tape further comprises a kinesiology tape.
It is noted that applicant’s specification (Para. 0058) discloses: “the outer surface 1504 of the ball 1500 may include a kinesiology tape that has a rubberized, flexible plastic tape 1506 that adheres to the outer surface 1504 of the ball 1500”.
Smith teaches the tape further comprises a kinesiology tape (Para. 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the tape further comprises a kinesiology tape as taught by Smith as a means of using a known material (a combination of thermoplastic rubber) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Smith: Para. 0037).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart, further in view of Sullivan (6315681).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the spherical, hollow shell further comprises at least one dimple that is filled with a dampening compound.
Sullivan (Figures 1-10) teaches the spherical shell further comprises at least one dimple that is filled with a dampening compound (Fig. 3 and 5, Part No. 32; Col. 27, Lines 66-67; Col. 28, Lines 1-6; Col. 28, Lines 26-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the hollow shell comprises at least one dimple that is filled with a dampening compound as taught by Sullivan as taught by Sullivan as a means of providing ball having holes with a filler material inside the holes to alter characteristics of the ball (Sullivan: Col. 27, Lines 66-67; Col. 28, Lines 1-6; Col. 28, Lines 26-34).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Sullivan, further in view of McDermott.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (Para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (a thermoplastic rubber compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Sullivan, further in view of Masutani.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene.
Masutani (Figure 1) teaches the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene (Col. 2, Lines 3-8; Col. 6, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene as taught by Masutani as a means of using a known material (vulcanized polybutadiene compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Sullivan, further in view of McDermott.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the dampening compound is thermoplastic rubber.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound (Para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (a thermoplastic rubber compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart, further in view of Fitchett (20120046130).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the interior of the spherical shell is coated with a sound dampening compound.
Fitchett (Figures 1-6) teaches the interior of the spherical shell (Fig. 1, Part No. 106) is coated with a sound dampening compound (104) (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the interior of the spherical shell is coated with a sound dampening compound as taught by Fitchett as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer positioned under a cover layer of a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Fitchett: Para. 0060).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) compound.
. Fitchett (Figures 1-6) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) compound (104) (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) compound as taught by Fitchett as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer positioned under a cover layer of a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Fitchett: Para. 0060).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Fitchett, further in view of Masutani.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a vulcanized polybutadiene compound.
Masutani (Figure 1) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a vulcanized polybutadiene compound (Col. 2, Lines 3-8; Col. 6, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a vulcanized polybutadiene compound as taught by Masutani as a means of using a known material (vulcanized polybutadiene compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Fitchett, further in view of McDermott.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound (Para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a thermoplastic rubber compound as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (a thermoplastic rubber compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a rubber compound.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a rubber compound (Para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a rubber compound as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (a rubber compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Fitchett, further in view of Bedwell.
Regarding claim 27, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a foam compound.
Bedwell (Figure 1) teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a foam compound (Col. 3, Lines 26-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a foam compound as taught by Bedwell as a means of using a known material (foam) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Bedwell: Col. 3, Lines 26-34).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francis in view of Bart and Fitchett, further in view of Simonutti.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a spherical hollow shell having interior and exterior sides (Para. 0030)
The modified Francis does not teach the sound dampening compound further comprises a felt compound.
Simonutti teaches the sound dampening compound further comprises a felt compound (Fig. 1, part No. 14) (Para. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Francis with the sound dampening compound further comprises a felt compound as taught by Simonutti as a means of using a known material (felt) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Simonutti: Para. 0044).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (20230201672) in view of McDermott.
Regarding claim 32, You (Figures 1-2) teaches a sound reducing pickleball, comprising: a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2); a plurality of holes (11) in the hollow shell (Para. 0023).
You does not teach a dampening compound positioned as an outer coating to the exterior side of the spherical, hollow shell.
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches a dampening compound (Fig. 3, Part No. 38; Fig. 4, Part No. 50) (Para. 0054, 0061) positioned as an outer coating to the exterior side of the spherical shell.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide You with a dampening compound positioned as an outer coating as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Regarding claim 33, the modified You (Figures 1-2) teaches a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2).
The modified You does not teach the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (Fig. 3, Part No. 38; Fig. 4, Part No. 50) (Para. 0054, 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified You with the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of McDermott, further in view of Masutani.
Regarding claim 34, the modified You (Figures 1-2) teaches a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2).
The modified You does not teach the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene.
Masutani (Figure 1) teaches the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene (Col. 2, Lines 3-8; Col. 6, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified You with the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene as taught by Masutani as a means of using a known material (vulcanized polybutadiene compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (20230201672) in view of Fitchett.
Regarding claim 35, You (Figures 1-2) teaches a sound reducing pickleball, comprising: a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2); a plurality of holes (11) in the hollow shell (Para. 0023).
You does not teach a dampening compound positioned as an interior coating to the interior side of the spherical, hollow shell.
Fitchett (Figures 1-6) teaches a dampening compound (104) (Para. 0060) positioned as an interior coating to the interior side of the spherical shell (Fig. 1, Part No. 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified You with a dampening compound positioned as an interior coating to the interior side of the spherical shell as taught by Fitchett as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer positioned under a cover layer of a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (Fitchett: Para. 0060).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Fitchett, further in view McDermott.
Regarding claim 36, the modified You (Figures 1-2) teaches a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2).
The modified You does not teach the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (Fig. 3, Part No. 38; Fig. 4, Part No. 50) (Para. 0054, 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified You with the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (thermoplastic polyurethane) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Fitchett, further in view of Masutani.
Regarding claim 37, You (Figures 1-2) teaches a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2).
You does not teach the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene.
Masutani (Figure 1) teaches the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene (Col. 2, Lines 3-8; Col. 6, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified You with the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene as taught by Masutani as a means of using a known material (vulcanized polybutadiene compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Sullivan.
Regarding claim 38, You (Figures 1-2) teaches a sound reducing pickleball, comprising: a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2); a plurality of holes (11) in the hollow shell (Para. 0023).
You does not teach at least one dimple that is filled with a dampening compound.
Sullivan (Figures 1-10) teaches at least one dimple that is filled with a dampening compound (Fig. 3 and 5, Part No. 32; Col. 27, Lines 66-67; Col. 28, Lines 1-6; Col. 28, Lines 26-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide You with at least one dimple that is filled with a dampening compound as taught by Sullivan as a means of providing ball having holes with a filler material inside the holes to alter characteristics of the ball (Sullivan: Col. 27, Lines 66-67; Col. 28, Lines 1-6; Col. 28, Lines 26-34).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Sullivan, further in view of McDermott.
Regarding claim 39, You (Figures 1-2) teaches a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2).
You does not teach the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE).
McDermott (Figure 1-10) teaches the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) (Para. 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified You with the dampening compound is thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) as taught by McDermott as a means of using a known material (a thermoplastic rubber compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (McDermott: 0061).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Sullivan, further in view of Masutani.
Regarding claim 40, the modified You (Figures 1-2) teaches a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2).
The modified You does not teach the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene.
Masutani (Figure 1) teaches the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene (Col. 2, Lines 3-8; Col. 6, Lines 40-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified You with the dampening compound is vulcanized polybutadiene as taught by Masutani as a means of using a known material (vulcanized polybutadiene compound) based on its suitability for its intended use (a dampening layer for a ball) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ; In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (20230293950) in view Francis.
Regarding claim 41, Fox (Figures 1-2) teaches a sound reducing pickleball, comprising: a spherical, hollow shell having an exterior side and an interior side (See fig. 1-2 and 9-10) (Para. 0018); a plurality of holes (Fig. 2, Part No. 18a) in the hollow shell (Para. 0018).
Fox does not teach a plurality of grommets inserted into at least two of the plurality of holes.
Francis (Figures 1-7) teaches a plurality of grommets (Fig. 3-4, Part No. 12) inserted into at least two of the plurality of holes (Para. 0032-0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Fox with a plurality of grommets inserted into at least two of the plurality of holes as taught by Francis as a means of providing a perforated hollow ball with grommets that insert into holes of the hollow ball (Francis: Para. 0032-0033).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
