DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claim amendments received 07/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending with no claims being amended.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molinari [US20180339202], in view of Ito et al. [US8684870], hereinafter Ito.
Regarding claim 1, Molinari discloses an inflatable ball, comprising:
an outer shell defining an outer ball surface and comprising panels (Figs. 1-3), wherein:
the panels comprise at least one surface texture ([0062], “at least one protrusion 58 may be defined as a plurality of protrusions 58 that are part of a surface texture 44 disposed on the outer substrate surface 18 of the cover 12”);
at least a subset of the panels comprises indentations in addition to the surface texture ([0062], “indentation 38, 34”);
the indentations comprise an indentation depth extending inwardly relative to the outer ball surface and an indentation shape with indentation length and indentation width extending along the outer ball surface (Fig. 3).
However, Molinari does not explicitly disclose an overall roughness volume of the outer ball surface of the inflatable ball ranges between 7000 and 30000 mm3.
Nevertheless, Ito teaches in a like invention, an overall roughness volume of the outer ball surface of the inflatable ball is related to the Reynolds number, which in turn improves the stability of the ball path (col. 10, lines 11-24, “the ball of Example 4 shows monotone decrease of the drag coefficient Cd in response to increase of the Reynolds number. This indicates that increasing the surface roughness of the ball by forming the plurality of projections offers the effect of smoothening the transition of the laminar boundary layer to the turbulent boundary layer in response to variations in Reynolds number, in addition to the effect of accelerating the above-described transition of the laminar boundary layer to the turbulent boundary layer by the projection. Therefore, the ball including the multiple projections like the ball of Example 4 improves the stability of the ball path not only in the range of low ball speed, but in the range of high ball speed. Thus, the ball path is expected to be stabilized within a wide range of ball speed”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the options increasing the surface roughness of the ball to an overall roughness volume which ranges between 7000 and 30000 mm3, which would be depending on the diameter of the ball. Applicant has not disclosed that this option provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem for a given sized ball. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the inflatable ball disclosed by Molinari, modified by the increased surface roughness for stabilizing the ball path, as taught by Ito, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well because both Ito’s experiment on the increased surface roughness and applicant’s invention disclose the same structure for increasing an overall roughness volume to achieve a Reynolds number which can improve the stability of the ball path.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the inflatable ball disclosed by Molinari, to have an overall roughness volume for a Reynolds number which can improve the stability of the ball path, as taught by Ito, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration depending on the size of the ball, while fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the combination of Molinari and Ito.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein the indentation shape is different from a texture shape of the surface texture (Molinari, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein the indentation shape is essentially kite-shaped, essentially elliptical, or essentially circular (Molinari, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1. However, the combination of Molinari and Ito does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum extent of the at least one surface texture perpendicular to the outer ball surface of the inflatable ball is smaller than a maximum depth of the indentations.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the options to have a maximum extent of the at least one surface texture perpendicular to the outer ball surface of the inflatable ball smaller than a maximum depth of the indentations, which would be "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant has not disclosed that this option provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the inflatable ball disclosed by the combination of Molinari and Ito, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well because both the combination of Molinari and Ito’s ball and applicant’s invention disclose the same structure for increasing an overall roughness volume to achieve a Reynolds number which can improve the stability of the ball path.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the inflatable ball disclosed by the combination of Molinari and Ito, to have a maximum extent of the at least one surface texture perpendicular to the outer ball surface of the inflatable ball smaller than a maximum depth of the indentations, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration, while fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the combination of Molinari and Ito.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein the inflatable ball comprises a soccer ball (Molinari, [0037], “Although the sports ball is depicted as a soccer ball in the associated Figures”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein only the subset of the panels comprises the indentations in addition to the surface texture, or wherein all of the panels comprise the indentations in addition to the surface texture (Molinari, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein at least one of: the indentations are not in contact with panel edges; or the indentations are essentially placed within a central region of a panel (Molinari, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein the indentations are distributed in-homogeneously on each panel having indentations, or wherein the indentations are distributed homogeneously on each panel having indentations (Molinari, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein each panel comprises only one surface texture (Molinari, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 6, the surface texture is essentially uniformly distributed on each of the panels, and/or wherein a shape of the surface texture is the same on each panel (Molinari, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein at least some panels comprise more than one surface texture (Molinari, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein the surface texture comprises multiple different shapes which are grouped relative to each other in a formation, wherein a plurality of formations is distributed at least partly across the panels, such that a distribution of the different shapes is repeatedly the same within the plurality of formations (Molinari, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein each panel having indentations comprises at least two distinct indentation depths, indentation lengths, indentation widths, or a combination thereof, and/or wherein on each panel having indentations the indentation depth, indentation length, indentation width, or a combination thereof decreases on average in a direction from an inner region to an outer/edge region of the panel (Molinari, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein at least one of: the indentation length varies between 1.0 and 30.0 mm; the indentation depth varies between 0 and 10 mm; or the indentation width varies between 0.1 and 15.0 mmm (Molinari, Figs. 11A-11G, [0082], “such that the terminus 65 is radially-spaced apart from the outer substrate surface 18 by a depth 67 that is greater than about 0.05 millimeters (mm)”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein each panel comprises an outer layer comprising polyurethane, and/or wherein each panel comprises an inner layer comprising a foamed material (Molinari, [0042], “the outer substrate 24 may be a composed of a polymeric material, a polymer foam material, or the like. Examples of suitable polymer materials include, but are not limited to, polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, polyamide, polyester, polypropylene, polyolefin, and the like” and [0044], “The respective cover layers 22, 26 of the intermediate structure 14 may be composed of a polymeric material, a polymer foam material, a foam material, textiles, or the like”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 15, wherein at least some indentations extend partly into a top surface of the inner layer and/or wherein the at least one surface texture extends only in the outer layer (Molinari, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein the subset comprises less than 32 panels, and/or wherein the number of panels not within the subset is less than 24 panels (Molinari, [0047], “The cover 12, when part of an example soccer ball 10, may include various numbers of panels 28, such as the conventional eleven (11) panels or any other number of panels 28”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Molinari and Ito discloses the inflatable ball of claim 1, wherein a maximum extent of the at least one surface texture perpendicular to the outer ball surface of the inflatable ball is less than 1.5 mm, and/or wherein a maximum length of a side of the at least one surface texture is less than 20 mm (Molinari, [0065], “In one example embodiment, the height 64 may be from about 0.07 millimeters (mm) to about 0.15 millimeters (mm). In another example, the height 64 is about 0.11 millimeters (mm). In such examples, it is beneficial for the height 64 to be at least 0.05 millimeters (mm) and less than 0.15 millimeters (mm) in order to enhance playability of the ball 10”).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, please refer to the claim rejections of claims 1, 2 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues “First, Ito does not teach the claimed limitation in the sole portion of Ito cited by the Office Action,” “Second, the rationale to modify is unsupported,” and “Third, the specification confirms non-arbitrary significance” (p. 8-10). The examiner respectfully submits that Ito discloses an overall roughness volume of the outer ball surface being a variable associated with Reynolds number and it is a variable for people to change to achieve a desired drag coefficient which in turn improves the stability of the ball path (col. 10, lines 11-24, “the ball of Example 4 shows monotone decrease of the drag coefficient Cd in response to increase of the Reynolds number. This indicates that increasing the surface roughness of the ball by forming the plurality of projections offers the effect of smoothening the transition of the laminar boundary layer to the turbulent boundary layer in response to variations in Reynolds number, in addition to the effect of accelerating the above-described transition of the laminar boundary layer to the turbulent boundary layer by the projection. Therefore, the ball including the multiple projections like the ball of Example 4 improves the stability of the ball path not only in the range of low ball speed, but in the range of high ball speed. Thus, the ball path is expected to be stabilized within a wide range of ball speed”). Thus it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the inflatable ball of Molinari to have an overall roughness volume of the outer ball surface to achieve a desired drag coefficient which in turn improves the stability of the ball path.
On top of this reasonable rationale to modify the overall roughness volume, it is a matter of fact that the outer ball surface area is related to the size/diameter of the ball, thus, an overall roughness volume is also a variable of the ball size. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the options to choose the surface roughness of the ball to an overall roughness volume which ranges between 7000 and 30000 mm3, which would be both depending on the diameter of the ball, and the desired drag coefficient. Applicant has not disclosed that this option provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem for a given sized ball. Applicant refers to [0062] and [0070] to argue this range is” non-arbitrary significance.” However, without a specific problem with a specific sized ball, [0062] and [0070] of the specification just presents the same reasoning that Ito presents --- an overall roughness volume of the outer ball surface is a variable associated with Reynolds number and it is a variable for people to change to achieve a desired drag coefficient which in turn improves the stability of the ball path. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the inflatable ball disclosed by Molinari, modified by the increased surface roughness for stabilizing the ball path, as taught by Ito, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well because both Ito’s experiment on the increased surface roughness and applicant’s invention discloses the same structure for increasing an overall roughness volume to achieve a Reynolds number which can improve the stability of the ball path.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the inflatable ball disclosed by Molinari, to have an overall roughness volume for a Reynolds number which can improve the stability of the ball path, as taught by Ito, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration depending on the size of the ball, while fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of the combination of Molinari and Ito.
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 YINGCHUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1375. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:30 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.
/YINGCHUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights