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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 07/13/2026. Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claim 11 is new. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
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 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelson et al. (US Patent No. 10,926,145 B2) in view of Rodriguez Perez (US Patent No. 11,701,552 B2).
In Reference to Claims 1-6 and 11
Michaelson teaches (Claim 1) A device for ball replacement in sportive practices, the device comprising: a support structure (e.g. structural items 320, lower panels, fig’s 1 and 3, and other supporting structure making up entire frame of cage 10, no separate part numbers are given) having a flat frontal surface (fig. 1 shows lower segments of structure are flat) that includes at least one ball delivery opening (front opening of item 1300 that ejects balls, fig. 1; item 1300 shown mounted in wall of structure 10, and has opening into play area / platform 100), []; at least one ball insertion opening (top of curved chute shown in fig. 12); and at least one ball delivery mechanism communicating with the at least one ball insertion opening (item 1300, fig’s 12 and 13), the at least one ball delivery mechanism comprising at least one actuator (item 1310, fig’s 12 and 13);
(Claim 2) characterized in that a posterior face of the support structure presents at least one housing (support structures surrounding item 1300, fig. 12, not separately labeled, floor, presumably posts are similar to items 320 of fig. 3, and top rail shown form a housing), wherein the at least one housing communicates with the at least one ball delivery opening (fig’s 1 and 12, housing of item 1300 is mounted at wall of structure to eject balls through opening) and with the at least one ball insertion opening (fig. 12, top of chute is insertion opening and communicates with housing), and wherein the at least one ball delivery mechanism is located inside the housing (item 1300, fig. 12, inside of structure shown);
(Claim 3) characterized in that the at least one ball insertion opening is located in one of the top side and the rear side of the housing (ball enters at both the top and rear as shown in fig. 12), in alignment with the at least one ball delivery mechanism (entry is aligned with item 1300, fig. 13);
(Claim 4) characterized in that the at least one actuator of the at least one ball delivery mechanism is one of a wired electronic actuator, a wireless electronic actuator and a mechanical actuator (item 1310, fig. 13A; column 5 lines 55-60; column 7 lines 5-9);
(Claim 11) wherein the at least one ball insertion opening is configured to receive a ball on a first side of the flat frontal surface for delivery on a second side of the flat frontal surface opposing the first side via the at least one ball delivery opening (chute opening is on backside of wall, fig. 12, ball is delivered to front side of wall onto playing surface 100, fig. 1).
Michaelson fails to teach information on the surface of claim 1.
Rodriguez Perez teaches (Claim 1) a flat frontal surface of the support structure further comprising, at least, one visual information display (fig’s 1I and 1J, column 4 line 64 – column 5 line 1);
(Claim 5) characterized in that each of the at least one visual information display is a LED panel (item 17, fig’s 1I, 1J, and 2, column 4 line 64 – column 5 line 1).
(Claim 6) characterized in that the at least one visual information display is among a plurality of visual information displays on the flat frontal surface of the structure (items 17, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the arena setup of Michaelson with the feature of an information display as taught by the arena setup of Rodriguez Perez for the purpose of allowing walls of the system to be used for advertising or other display purposes, making the system more versatile for a wider range of purposes, making the system more attractive to the users.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelson et al., in view of Rodriguez Perez, and further in view of Joo et al. (US PGPub. No. 2018/0318691 A1) .
In Reference to Claims 7-8
The modified device of Michaelson teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
The modified device of Michaelson further teaches a visual information display as discussed above (item 17, Rodriguez Perez).
Michaelson fails to teach the remaining features of claims 7 and 8.
(Claim 7) characterized in that at least one [panel] is coupled in an articulated manner to [a] flat frontal surface of [a] structure to form an articulated [panel] in front of at least one ball delivery opening (any of items 201 / 203 / 205. Fig’s 4-6);
(Claim 8) characterized in that [a] articulated [panel] is coupled to an automated opening and closure mechanism that is configured for opening and closure of [] at least one ball delivery opening (fig’s 4-6, any of the various mechanisms shown that open and close panels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ball delivery system of Michaelson with the feature of an automated articulating closure mechanism as taught by the delivery system of Joo for the purpose of allowing the opening to be closed when not being used for ball delivery in order to allow the playing wall / surface to be used to provide a display on the wall as taught by Joo (paragraph 0007), making the system more immersive, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
In Reference to Claims 9 and 10
The modified device of Michaelson teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Michaelson and Rodriguez Perez both teach remotely controlling electronic aspects of the game systems (column 5 lines 55-60, Michaelson; column 2 lines 9-27, Rodriguez Perez).
Michaelson fails to teach the remaining features of claims 9 and 10.
Joo teaches (Claim 9) characterized in that the at least one visual information display is [] controlled for exhibition of different information (paragraphs 0022 and 0023);
(Claim 10) characterized in that the at least one visual information display is [] controlled to exhibit information in synchrony with the operation of the at least one ball delivery mechanism (paragraphs 0013 and 0016, a display of a virtual pitcher synchronized with the pitch of the ball; different images for different pitches).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ball delivery system of Michaelson with the feature of an information display synchronized with the delivery of a ball as taught by the delivery system of Joo for the purpose of allowing for a more immersive and comprehensive experience as taught by Joo (paragraph 0007), making the system more interesting and attractive to the users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the drawing objections, claim objections, and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Michaelson fails to teach a support structure having a flat frontal surface with at least one ball delivery opening. This is not persuasive.
First, applicant then goes on to discuss curtains 300, troughs 200 and the ball collection and distribution system, generally. These elements were not used in the rejection and are not germane to the rejection. It is unclear what the intent of these arguments is, but arguing regarding elements that were not used in the rejection does not obviate the rejection. The structure of the entire cage 10 is not made up of the curtains 300, and, the examiner did not point to these elements in the rejection. These are simply additional elements that are located sequentially around the cage 10, which is of a frame and panel structure (support items 320, lower panels, and upper cage 110).
Second, the claim language is broad and is fully met by the Michaelson reference, as discussed in the above action. The examiner notes here that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
It is not entirely clear to the examiner what currently claimed elements applicant believes are not found in Michaelson, however, broadly interpreted, the elements currently recited in the claims are found in Michaelson. Specifically, Michaelson teaches a support structure (e.g. structural items 320, fig’s 1 and 3, lower panels, and other supporting structure making up entire frame of cage 10, no separate part numbers are given, but the entire cage is made up of structural elements) having a flat frontal surface (the lower walls of cage 10 are shown as flat in fig. 1, also see column 8 lines 53-63, at least some of these are boards which are flat, and, presumably everywhere that is not a return opening area is also flat panels) with at least one ball delivery opening (fig. 1 shows 1300 mounted in a flat wall of the cage system 10, for ejecting balls into the playing area / platform 100, through an opening, see fig’s 12 and 13). This meets all of applicant’s claimed limitations. If applicant believes there are structural distinctions between the ball launching through a wall system of Michaelson and the present ball launching through a wall system, these specific structural elements should be claimed with more particularity in order to overcome the current interpretation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights