Unity caDETAILED 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the ball attachment assembly a ball support rod connected…” is missing a verb between “assembly” and “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ball support rod" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5238251 (hereinafter “Staka”).
Regarding claim 1, Staka discloses a sports training aid (Fig. 1, 10) that has a stand assembly (Fig. 1, 12) having an upright support post (Fig. 1, 22); ball attachment assembly (Fig. 10, 158, 162 and 164) which includes a target ball (Fig. 1, 152) adapted to being struck by a racquet; and a stand attachment assembly (Fig. 1, 24 and 130) which operatively attaches the ball attachment assembly to the upright support post of the stand assembly to allow for reciprocal selective height and angular orientation adjustments of the target ball relative to the upright support post of the stand assembly (Col. 4, lines 30-48).
Regarding claim 8, Staka further discloses the stand attachment assembly includes first and second friction locks (Fig. 7, 72 and 74) to releasably lock the stand attachment assembly and the support rod at the selective height and angular orientation adjustments (Col. 5, lines 37-64).
Regarding claim 20, Staka further discloses the upright support post includes lower and upper tubular post members coaxially connected together (Fig. 1, 22 and 24).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staka in view of US 5685542 (hereinafter “Weis”).
Regarding claim 2, Staka discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the ball attachment assembly comprises: a housing; and a drum assembly operatively connected to the housing to mount the target ball for reciprocal pivotally movements about a drum axis between a first position which presents the target ball at an extended location where the target ball is adapted to being struck by a racquet, and a second position where the target ball is pivotally displaced to a retracted location relative to the extended location.
Weis discloses a tennis training apparatus that has a pivot block (Fig. 4, 206) within a housing (Fig. 1, 122) to enable the ball to move and return back in place when struck (Col. 10, lines 11-40). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the training device of Staka with a pivot block attached to the ball attachment assembly, as taught by Weis, to further allow mobility of the ball during hits while returning it back to place. Additionally, the examiner points out that the stand attachment assembly contains component 130, which is a cam coupled with a spring element to allow the ball to move back into place once it. Shifting this rotational element from the upright stand attachment assembly to the ball attachment assembly would not modify the result of the ball moving and returning to place once hit. Rearrangement of parts is not given patentable weight when there would be no modification of operation of the device Thus, the claim limitation would be obvious in view of Staka’s design. See MPEP 2144 – In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 3, modified Staka further discloses that the ball attachment assembly comprises a tensioning element (Staka: Fig 8, 124, and Weis: Fig. 5, 232) which exerts a rotational bias force on the drum assembly to thereby cause the target ball to return to the extended location from the retracted location thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Staka discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the ball attachment assembly comprises: a housing; a drum assembly having upper and lower stop members, the drum assembly being mounted to the housing for rotational movement about a drum axis to allow the drum assembly to be rotationally moved between the first and second positions to thereby present the target ball at the extended and retracted locations, respectively; and an elastomeric force dampener fixed to the housing, the force dampener including upper and lower bumper stops that are positioned to contact the upper and lower stop members of the drum assembly and thereby establish the first and second positions thereof.
Weis discloses a tennis training apparatus that has a pivot block (Fig. 4, 206) within a housing (Fig. 1, 122) to enable the ball to move and return back in place when struck (Col. 10, lines 11-40). This assembly also has a stop member (Fig. 5, 244 – stop arm) and an elastomeric force dampener bumper stop (Fig. 5, 238 – stop block). Thus, it would be obvious to provide the training device of Staka with a pivot block attached to the ball attachment assembly, as taught by Weis, to further allow mobility of the ball during hits while returning it back to place. Though this modified Staka only teaches one stop position, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, having two stop members/bumper stops would predictably limit the movement in an additional position/direction. See In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 17, modified Staka further discloses the force dampener includes a through hole adjacent to the lower bumper stop. In Weis, Fig. 4, stop block 238 has fasteners 240 and 242 securing it. Though the phrase “through hole” is not mentioned, it is inherent that there would be a hole for which the fasters go through.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staka in view of EP 0253113 (hereinafter “Weissortel”).
Regarding claim 4, Staka discloses all the limitations of claim 1, including the ball attachment assembly comprises a support rod (Fig. 1, 150) extending outwardly from the upright support post and connecting the ball attachment assembly to the stand attachment assembly. Staka does not disclose that the support post can allow reciprocal rotations of the ball attachment assembly about an elongated axis of the support rod and to present the target ball at selected different angular orientations.
Weissortel discloses a tennis training apparatus with a support rod connecting to the ball to allow for rotation around the axis of the rod (Fig. 1, 11). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add rotational movement to the support arm as taught by Weissortel to the support arm of Staka to increase possible angular orientations of ball striking positions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staka in view of Weissortel, as applied in claim 4, and in further view of US 20230218966 (hereinafter “Liu”) and Official Notice.
Regarding claim 12, modified Staka discloses all the limitations of claim 4 and a forwardly projecting socket (Fig. 9, 168) but does not necessarily disclose a T-shaped stand attachment which includes a mounting sleeve moveably sleeved over the upright support post, and the forwardly projecting socket which rotationally receives a proximal end of the support rod.
Liu discloses a sports training device (Fig. 2, 1) that has a T-shaped stand (Fig. 2, 20) with a moveable mounting sleeve (Fig. 2, 34; Para. 0015) with a projecting socket that receives a support rod (Fig. 2, 20). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide modified Staka with a T-shape and moveable sleeve as taught by Liu to provide more adjustability in height for training needs.
Though modified Staka does not disclose the socket rotationally receives the end of the support rod, the examiner takes Official Notice that providing a rotational rod to the modified Staka would have been obvious to promote adjustability of the target positioning and that rotational elements are well known in the art.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staka in view of Weis, as applied to claim 3, and in further view of CN 209696240 (hereinafter “Liang”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Staka discloses all the limitations of claim 3, including wherein the ball attachment assembly a comprises ball support rod (Weis: Fig. 1, 50) connected to and outwardly projecting from the drum assembly (Weis: Fig. 4, 206) (Combination of references for reasons as stated supra in claim 2). Modified Staka does not disclose the ball support rod having a terminal spindle defining a spindle axis parallel to the drum axis, the target ball being mounted to the terminal spindle to allow the target ball to spin about the spindle axis.
Liang discloses a tennis trainer that holds the ball with a y-shape tennis frame with a fixed shaft (Fig. 8, 61) to allow the user to practice topspin rotation (Specific Implementation methods, para. 4). Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ball support rod of modified Staka with a y-shaped ball holder/spindle as taught by Liang to enable the practice of advanced hitting techniques such as topspin.
Regarding claim 6, modified Staka further discloses the stand attachment assembly includes an indicator disc having indicia corresponding to angular orientations of the target ball; and wherein the support rod includes a radially projecting indicator sight (Staka: Fig. 6, 82) in cooperative registry with the indicia of the indicator disc (Staka: Fig. 6, 80), the indicator sight thereby visually indicating a selected angular orientation of the target ball when the support rod and the ball attachment assembly are rotationally adjusted (Staka: Col. 5, lines 37-64).
Regarding claim 7, modified Staka further discloses the support rod includes a radially projecting tab (Staka: Fig. 6, 74) opposite to the radially projecting indicator sight to facilitate manual rotational adjustments of the support rod and the ball attachment assembly (Staka: Col. 5, lines 37-64). Under BRI, the threaded knob is interpreted to read on a projecting tab, and is positioned across from indicator sight 82.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staka, as applied to claim 1, in view of US 20110006174 (hereinafter “Hollinger”).
Regarding claim 23, Staka discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose the upright support post comprises a lower end section which includes: a foldable tripod assembly having a slide collar that is moveable along the lower end section of the upright support post so as to move the tripod assembly between deployed and stowed conditions thereof, an elastic toggle cord attached at one end to the slide collar and having an opposed end which includes a locking tab, and a receiver fixed to the lower end section of the upright support post, the receiver being spaced from the slide collar and adapted to receive the locking tab of the elastic toggle cord to thereby tension the toggle cord so as to maintain the tripod assembly in the deployed condition thereof.
Hollinger, in the same field of endeavor of supports, discloses a stand with a foldable tripod base (Fig. 12) with a sleeve/collar (Fig. 12, 1205) that is supported through a tensioned elastic cable (Fig. 12, 1206) and corresponding receiver (Fig. 12, 1210). Though the cable is not directly attached to the collar, switching the position would not significantly modify the stabilization and deployment of the tripod legs. Rearrangement of parts is not given patentable weight when there would be no modification of operation of the device Thus, the claim limitation would be obvious in view of modified Staka’s design. See MPEP 2144 – In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the flattened base of Staka with the foldable tripod base as taught by Hollinger for a more modular and easily transportable design.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staka in view of Weis, as applied to claim 2, in further view of US D838330 (hereinafter “Hofmeyr”).
Regarding claim 24, modified Staka does not disclose the ball attachment assembly comprises: a screen holder having a Y-shaped head portion and a lower stem base removably connected to the housing; and a plurality of differently configured guide screens, each of the guide screens being adapted for removable attachment to the Y-shaped head portion.
Hofmeyr discloses a tennis training device that has a guide screen and screen holder that is y-shaped (see annotated Fig. 2 below), providing a guide for the player’s swing when striking the ball. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a screen to modified Staka, as taught by Hofmeyr, to indicate proper racquet orientation during practice. Though Hofmeyr does not disclose a plurality of screens, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the instant case, more differently configured screens would merely provide different guide options for swings based off of the user’s preference.
PNG
media_image1.png
808
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, modified Staka further discloses the guide screens include a series of spaced apart mounting holes, and wherein the Y-shaped head portion has a series of spaced apart mounting studs adapted to be accepted within a respective one of the mounting holes of the guide screens to thereby removably attach a selected one of the guide screens to the screen holder (See Hofmeyr, annotated Fig. 4 below. Reasons for combination are as stated supra in claim 24).
PNG
media_image2.png
822
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and all 112(b) rejections were corrected.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 would be allowable for the additional limitations on the drum assembly of the training device, including the drum reel, tensioned rebound cord, and specifics of structural attachment. Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable for their dependence on claim 9.
Claim 13 would be allowable for further defining structure of the stand attachment assembly, including moveable mounting sleeve and T-shape having guide rollers and tracks.
Claim 15 would be allowable for further defining the convex trough and concave surface of the drum assembly and force dampener.
Claim 16 would be allowable for the added limitations of the opposing upright wall mounts and L-shaped mounting.
Claim 18 would be allowable for the added limitations on the drum assembly and force dampener, including the recessed seat.
Claim 19 would be allowable for the added limitations on the force dampener, including the tail member structure.
Claim 21 would be allowable for the additional limitations of the support post having apertures and connection via fin spring clips and pins in combination with the previously claimed features. Claim 22 would be allowed for its dependence on claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/S.M.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights