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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on May 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 3, “extend” should be –extends--, as “each is the modified noun.
In claims 14 and 18, lines 5 and 18, respectively, “of the rear panel the top…” should include a comma between “panel” and “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDonnell (AU 2019210539). Disclosed is a packaged inflatable ball comprising packaging including a front panel (105) having a first aperture (120), and a rear panel (110) spaced from the front panel and having a second aperture (125), the front panel and the rear panel forming a container (100), and an inflatable ball (135) disposed within the container, the inflatable ball being at least partially deflated such that a first portion of the ball has a generally concave shape (see Figures 4A and 4B) and a second portion has a generally convex shape (see Figures 4A and 4B), wherein the second portion of the ball extends at least partially out of the container through the first aperture (see Figure 4B).
As to claim 4, disclosed is the first aperture and the second aperture being generally aligned with each other around a common axis (see Figure 4B).
As to claim 5, disclosed is a second inflatable ball (see paragraphs 0096 and 0097) disposed within the container (100), the second ball being at least partially deflated such that a first portion of the second ball has a generally concave shape and a second portion has a generally convex shape.
As to claim 6, disclosed is the ball being generally spherical when inflated (see paragraph 0108).
As to claims 7 and 8, disclosed is the ball being one of a basketball, volleyball, soccer ball, football, and rugby ball (see paragraph 002).
As to claim 9, disclosed is no portion of the ball extending out of the container through the second aperture (see Figure 4B).
As to claim 11, disclosed is the first portion of the ball nested within the second portion of the ball (see Figure 4B, 140 nested within 130).
As to claim 12, disclosed is the first portion of the ball having a first surface area and the second portion of the ball having a second surface area about equal to the first surface area (see Figure 4B).
As to claim 13, disclosed is the first portion of the ball collapsed such that it at least partially abuts the second portion of the ball (se Figure 4B).
As to claim 14, in Figure 4B, the first portion includes a base section (the section of the ball in contact with the rear panel), a middle section (the section directly after the base section that extends towards the front panel) and a top section (the section that extends out of the front panel), the middle section disposed between the base section and the top section, and the generally concave shape of the first portion being defined by the base section, middle section and top section, and the base section at least partially abuts an inner surface of the rear panel (the base section abuts the rear panel), the top section disposed opposite the base section such that a distance between the front panel and top section is less than a distance between the front panel and base section (the front panel is adjacent the top section, wherein the distance between the top section and front panel is less than the front panel to the base section.
As to claims 15 and 16, see Figures 7 and 8 and paragraphs 104 and 105.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell in view of either one of Baublitz et al. (5,622,258) and Gourd (2003/0121808). McDonnell does not disclose third and fourth apertures as claimed. However, Baublitz et al. and Gourd each disclose first (88 through 14; leftmost 26; respectively), second (88 through 12; rightmost 43), third (132; middle 26) and fourth (134; middle 43) apertures in a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of McDonnell with third and fourth apertures in the manner of Baublitz et al. as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a capability of the container to be hung in display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of McDonnell with third and fourth apertures in the manner of Gourd as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a multiplicity of ball display apertures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to merely provide multiple ball apertures, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As to claim 3, McDonnell further discloses a second inflatable ball (see paragraphs 0096 and 0097) disposed within the container (100), the second ball being at least partially deflated such that a first portion of the second ball has a generally concave shape and a second portion has a generally convex shape, in the modification employing Gourd the second portion of the second ball extends at least partially out of the through the third aperture.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell in view of the Flipkart kit. McDonnell discloses the inclusion of an air pump in general (see paragraph 044) does not disclose the provision of an air pump exposed. However, the Flipkart kit discloses an air pump that is partially exposed through the container (see Figure 1, the air pump is disposed in a cutout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the packaging of McDonnell with an air pump disposed in the manner of Flipkart as claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide clear discernment of an included air pump.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell. McDonnell has been described above, and discloses a front panel (105) with an aperture (120), a rear panel (110) with an aperture (125), and two side panels (115, 115), but not of particular dimensions defining the container size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the package of McDonnell of particular dimensions s claimed, as such a modification would predictably provide a package of particular dimensions. It has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patently distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonnell in view of Baker et al. (3,123,204). McDonnell doses not disclose a spacer provided within the container. However, Baker et al. disclose a spacer (disclosed cradle) positioned between a ball and a rear panel of the container causing the ball to be spaced from the rear panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the package of McDonnell with a spacer in the manner of Baker et al. to keep the ball within the container to better protect the ball within the container.
Prior Art not relied upon: Please refer to the additional references listed on the attached PTO-892, which, while not relied upon for the claim rejection, these references are deemed relevant to the claimed invention as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYON P GEHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-4555. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday through Thursday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Orlando Aviles, can be reached on (571) 270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYON P GEHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Bryon P. Gehman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
BPG