DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is allowed.
Claim 2 includes limitations directed towards 2. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the cover panel material, based on a weight of ethylene vinyl acetate as 100 parts by weight, a content of the foaming agent is from 8 parts by weight to 15 parts by weight, a content of the filler is from 60 parts by weight to 110 parts by weight, a content of polyethylene is from 60 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight, a content of the natural rubber is from 20 parts by weight to 40 parts by weight, a content of the crosslinking agent is from 2 parts by weight to 4 parts by weight, a content of zinc oxide is from 1 part by weight to 5 parts by weight, a content of stearic acid is from 1 part byweight to 5 parts by weight and a content of the anti-wear agent is from 2 parts by weight to 6 parts by weight. These limitations when viewed in combination with any intervening and parent claims and any remaining limitations of the claim are seen to provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art of record. The closest prior art of record Laliberty teaches a basketball with a carcass and some of the materials, however the reference is silent with regards to the exact weights of all the different materials.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laliberty (JP 2009066401 A) in view of Chuang (US 20170087418 A1) and Lei (CN 114015149 A).
Regarding claim 1, Laliberty teaches 1. A basketball with cover panels, comprising: a basketball carcass, and at least two cover panels disposed on a surface of the basketball carcass; See Fig. 2 wherein the panels of 54 or the two halves of 50 can be considered the two cover panels., polyethylene, natural rubber, and an anti-wear agent; "Preferably, the sheet of foam material is porous and is a very light material made from various plastics such as epoxy resin, urea resin, polyurethane, polystyrene, polyethylene, or polyvinyl chloride." and "a game ball having a carcass including a foamed sponge rubber layer and a seam formed from an outer layer of the game ball carcass is disclosed. Also disclosed are carcass and methods for making such carcass.".
Lei does teach what the primary reference is silent on including cover panels are made by foaming a cover panel material, and the cover panel material comprises a foaming agent, a filler, a crosslinking agent, zinc oxide, stearic acid "In the present invention, the step a) and step b) substantially cover the weighing, mixing and granulating process; The process of weighing is specifically as follows: according to the dosage of the prescription of high elasticity and shock absorption; the respectively-linking agent and the foaming agent are weighed in the first group; the zinc oxide, stearic acid, zinc stearate, titanium pigment or color particle is the second group; The remaining materials are weighed in the third group." The third group of materials may be considered filler.
Chuang does teach what the primary reference is silent on including ethylene vinyl acetate and an anti-wear agent. See [0004-0005][0024+] which speak of the use of a wear resistant material and EVA foam in a ball structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Lei to provide high resilience and excellent shock absorption performance to an apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Chuang to provide resistance to wear in a sports ball.
Regarding claim 4, Lei teaches 4. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the crosslinking agent in the cover panel material comprises dicumyl peroxide. "the peroxide crosslinking agent is selected from dicumyl peroxide".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Lei to provide high resilience and excellent shock absorption performance to an apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, Lei teaches 5. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the foaming agent in the cover panel material comprises azodicarbonamide or 4,4'-oxybis(benzenesulfonylhydrazide). "Preferably, the foaming agent is selected from azodicarbonamide, expanded microsphere and 4, 4-oxo-diphenyl sulfonyl hydrazide in the one kind of or more.".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Lei in view of In re Leshin where the courts held that the selection of a known material to make an apparatus of a type made of similar material prior to the invention was held to be obvious. (See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) As such, the use of azodicarbonamide is well known in the art and the use of such would have been obvious to a personal of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Laliberty teaches 7. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein a density of each cover panel is independently from 0.15 g/cm³ to 0.17 g/cm³. "Alternatively, foamed rubber can be used. Foam rubber is a very elastic, porous, lightweight rubber with a density of 0.10 to 0.25 g/cm^3 and there are several ways to make this rubber directly from latex." The examiner notes that the density is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to use the density stated in Laliberty to obtain optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9, Laliberty teaches 9. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the surface of the basketball carcass comprises at least two convex strips formed between any two adjacent said cover panels. See Fig. 6; (22) wherein the raised seems may be considered the two convex strips between the cover panels.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laliberty (JP 2009066401 A) in view of Chuang (US 20170087418 A1) and Lai (US 5320345 A) and Lei (CN 114015149 A).
Regarding claim 3, Lai teaches 3. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filler in the cover panel material comprises calcium carbonate. See 2:20+ which makes well known the use of calcium carbonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Lai in view of In re Leshin where the courts held that the selection of a known material to make an apparatus of a type made of similar material prior to the invention was held to be obvious. (See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) As such, the use of calcium carbonate is well known in the art and the use of such would have been obvious to a personal of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laliberty (JP 2009066401 A) in view of Chuang (US 20170087418 A1) and Lei (CN 114015149 A) and Mimura (US 20060199686 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mimura teaches 6. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the anti-wear agent in the cover panel material comprises rosin. See [0046+] which teaches the use of Rosin resin in the context of a ball.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Mimura to provide abrasion resistance to a ball (See [0002+].
Regarding claim 8, Mimura teaches 8. The basketball with ethylene vinyl acetate cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein a thickness of each cover panel is independently from 0.8 mm to 2 mm. See [0025+] which teaches a layer thickness of 0.3 to 3mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Mimura to provide a desirable thickness for use as a surface material for balls (See [0025+]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laliberty (JP 2009066401 A) in view of Chuang (US 20170087418 A1) and Kennedy (US 20040180740 A1) and Lei (CN 114015149 A).
Regarding claim 10, Laliberty teaches 10. The basketball with cover panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the basketball carcass comprises: a bladder; See Fig. 2 which shows the carcass and note "the game ball is a basketball, but other inflatable or air-filled bladder game balls" which teaches the bladder.
Chuang does teach what the primary reference is silent on including ethylene vinyl acetate See [0024+].
Kennedy does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a yarn wrapped layer, wrapped around a surface of the bladder; and a middle layer, formed on a surface of the yarn wrapped layer and completely covering the surface of the yarn wrapped layer; wherein a surface of the middle layer is the surface of the basketball carcass. See [0027+] the layers 16 and 18 may be considered the middle layer which covers the yarn and bladder and forms a surface of the carcass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Chuang in view of In re Leshin where the courts held that the selection of a known material to make an apparatus of a type made of similar material prior to the invention was held to be obvious. (See In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) As such, the use of calcium carbonate is well known in the art and the use of such would have been obvious to a personal of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Laliberty with Kennedy to ensure roundness of the ball through the use of the yarn to stabilize the round shape.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ou '928 US 20020098928 A1 - Basketball carcass with foaming layer.
Ou '685 US 20060199685 A1 - Basketball carcass with foaming layer.
Krysiak US 20160074714 A1 - Basketball with foaming layer.
Ou '601 US 20060148601 A1 - Basketball carcass with foaming layer in cover.
Lin US 20060217219 A1 - [0020+] teaches zinc-oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711