DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
This office action is in response to a preliminary amendment received 2/24/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim 18 receives a priority date of 12/25/20 based on the filing of CN202011567478.4.
Claim 23 receives the priority date of the CIP filed 12/2/24 based on “magnetic flux” and par. [0097].
Claims 24-28 receive the priority date of this CIP filed 12/2/24 based on the limitations “first and second layer” found in par. [0105] and Fig. 20 which is not found in the parent applications.
Claims 29 and 30 also receives the CIP date of 12/2/24 based on Figs. 34-37 and pars. [0119]-[0102].
Claim 33 has priority date of the CIP based on par. [0033].
Claim 34 has priority date of the CIP based on par. [0080].
Claims 36 and 37 have a priority date of the CIP based on par. [0087]-[0088].
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18, line 2 should refer to “each of the first and second petals include” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 18, lines 5 should read “within and spaced along the . 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 18-37 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. The terms “soft and flexible” in claim 18, line 3 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” and “flexible” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (see specifically, applicant’s par. [0064], the specification not giving any real ascertainable standard to determine what is “soft” or “flexible”). Claims 19-37 are rejected because they are dependent from claim 18.
Claims 29 is 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 29 claims “wherein the toy water ball has a cartoon shape in the closed state” (emphasis added). Does applicant mean a character from a cartoon (emphasis added)? Because a “cartoon” is a “a sketch or drawing, a “comic strip” or “animated cartoon” as defined by dictionary.com. As the exact limitations of claim 29 are unknown, the claim is indefinite.
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 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 18, 20-22, 29-32, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour (US Pub. No. 2014/0221136; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 18, Forutanpour discloses a toy ball (Fig. 3, item 11 as seen in Fig. 18, items 127 and 129), comprising: a first petal and a second petal (Fig. 18, item 125 having two petals), each of the first and second petals includes: a soft and flexible sheet shell (pars. [0055] and [0058]; noting it can be “rubber” which can obviously be “soft” and flexible when used a toy ball that specifically impacts a person during “dodgeball”; and noting making it “soft and flexible” would be also obvious based on “intended use”, see par. [0055]) configured as a portion of a shell (Fig. 18, item 129 and see Fig. 3, items 11a and 11b and par. [0058]; noting under Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 683 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011), combining side by side embodiments does not require a “leap of inventiveness”), a rim portion (Fig. 18; noting the edge of rim on item 129) having a plurality of magnetic members embedded within and spaced along the (Fig. 17, items 111; noting this is obvious and par. [0088]; disclosing item 111 may be a magnet); a connecting member that connects the two petals to each other (Fig. 18, item 131), wherein: the toy ball is movable between a closed state and an open state (Fig. 18 vs. Fig. 3), the plurality of petals form a closed carrying cavity in the closed state (Fig. 3; clearly carrying an inner ball); and each of the plurality of magnetic members of the first petal is aligned to interact with one of the plurality of magnetic members of the second petal (par. [0088]), the corresponding magnetic members on different petals attract each other in the closed state by an attraction force sufficient to cause the rim portions of the two petals to form a seal (par. [0088] and Fig. 5 and par. [0065]). It is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose the use of water in the inner cavity. However, Forutanpour discloses that a reusable sports ball can carry other things (par. [0057]). The Examiner notes that the ability of the ball to carry water on the inside is functionally possible given the structure (see par. [0057], noting it could functionally carry a can of “water”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the ball as disclosed by Forutanpour could functionally carry water within the internal structure because doing so would be possible given the structure.
Regarding claim 20, Forutanpour discloses that the connecting member is integrally formed with the rim portions of both the first petal and the second petal (Fig. 18, item 131; noting the connecting member is clearly “integral” and noting “integrally formed” is merely a product-by-process limitation, see MPEP 2113; noting “Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an nonobvious difference”).
Regarding claim 21, Forutanpour discloses that the first petal, the second petal, and the connecting member are integrally formed by molding (Fig. 18, item 131; noting the connecting member and petals are clearly “integral” and noting “integrally formed” is merely a product-by-process limitation, see MPEP 2113; noting “Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an nonobvious difference”).
Regarding claim 22, Forutanpour discloses that the plurality of magnetic members on both the first petal and the second petal are evenly spaced circumferentially along the respective rim portion (Fig. 17, item 111 and par. [0088]; noting use of polar opposite magnets at the same location on both sides of the ball rims would be obvious as they work in combination to create an “assembled, usable, or whole ball”).
Regarding claim 29, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the toy water ball has a cartoon shape in the closed state. However, regarding the exact shape of the ball, it has been held that, absent a convincing argument otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art could use numerous configurations in shape or form to accomplish the same purpose. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)(see applicant’s spec, par. [01119]-[0120]; applicant giving no criticality for the exact shape). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact shape of the ball would not be significant: that is, the ball would continue to open and close regardless of its exact shape.
Regarding claim 30, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the rims are non-circular. However, regarding the exact shape of the rims, it has been held that, absent a convincing argument otherwise, one of ordinary skill in the art could use numerous configurations in shape or form to accomplish the same purpose. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)(see applicant’s spec, par. [01119]-[0120]; applicant giving no criticality for the exact shape). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact shape of the rims would not be significant: that is, the ball would continue to open and close regardless of its exact shape of the rims.
Regarding claim 31, the Forutanpour discloses that the rim portion comprises a fitting surface that is concave in a natural state (Forutanpour: Fig. 5 and par. [0065]-[0066]; noting they are “concave” from a perspective of inside the ball layer).
Regarding claim 32, the Forutanpour discloses that the fitting surface has an annular protrusion circumferentially along the rim portion (Forutanpour: Fig. 5; noting the protruding portion at the middle of the rim can broadly be considered an “annular protrusion” in the unconnected state).
Regarding claim 35, the Forutanpour discloses that the closed water-carrying cavity in the closed state is a water-tight enclosure (Fig. 5 and par. [0065]; noting the ability of the rim to deform makes functionally possible a water-tight enclosure).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour (US Pub. No. 2014/0221136; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Mowbray et al. (herein “Mowbray”; US Pub. No. 2018/0229885 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 19, Forutanpour discloses the connecting member is configured as a sheet (Fig. 18, noting it appears to be one solid piece of the material). In the alternative, Forutanpour discloses that the connecting member is some kind of folding hinge (Fig. 18, item 131). In addition Mowbray discloses a similar invention with connected petals wherein the connecting member is a sheet (Fig. 13, item 12 or alternatively, Fig. 18, item 6 and par. [0133]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Forutanpour to use a connecting member as a sheet as taught by Mowbray because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a sheet hinge) for another (some type of folding hinge) to obtain predictable results (the continued ability to use a hinge to fasten two petals together, the hinge being in the form of a sheet).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour (US Pub. No. 2014/0221136; as cited in applicant’s IDS) Whitehead (US Pub. No. 2005/0075037 A1).
Regarding claim 23, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the corresponding magnetic members have magnetic flux density of about 130 mT to 260 mT at a center position of surfaces facing each other. However, Forutanpour clearly discloses the use of magnets that would inherently have some strength or flux density (par. [0088]). In addition, regarding the exact value of the magnetic flux density, it has been held 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, to support the Examiner’s assertion that magnetic strength or magnetic flux density is a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result) and can be optimized or found though routine experimentation, the Examiner evidences Whitehead which states that magnetic strength (or flux density) is a result-effective variable based on the desired retaining force (claim 19). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact magnetic flux density or strength could be optimized based on the desired retaining force.
Claims 24-28, 33, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour (US Pub. No. 2014/0221136; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Chen (US Pub. No. 2022/0203256 A1; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 24, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the rim portion comprises a first and layer and a second layer. However, Chen appears to show a similar ball with magnets wherein the rim shows what can be considered a first layer and a second layer (Fig. 6, annotated below). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Forutanpour to use a first and second layer as taught and suggested by Chen because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a ball with magnets around the rim, and a ball with a rim that appears to have two layers with a position to mount the magnets) according to known methods (using two layers on the rim) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use magnets on the rims, the magnets mounted in a rim with two layers having a spot to mount the magnets).
PNG
media_image1.png
594
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, the combined Forutanpour and Chen disclose that the second layer comprises mounting grooves to host the plurality of magnetic members (Chen: Fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 26, the combined Forutanpour and Chen disclose that the first layer is an integral part of the shell, and the second layer is stacked on the first layer, thus embedding the plurality of magnetic members (Chen: Fig. 6; noting “integral” can merely mean “of, relating to, or belonging as a part of whole”).
Regarding claim 27, the combined Forutanpour and Chen disclose that the second layer and the first layer are stacked and merged by a molding process (Chen: Fig. 6 above noting they are clearly “stacked” and “merged by a molding process” is merely a product-by-process limitation, see MPEP 2113; noting “Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an nonobvious difference”).
Regarding claim 28, it is noted that the combined Forutanpour and Chen do not specifically disclose that the second layer is thicker than the first layer. However, regarding the thickness of the second layer as compared to the first, it has been held that if a change in the relative dimensions over the prior does not make the claimed invention perform differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(see par. [0109]; applicant giving no criticality to the thickness of the second being greater than the first). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact thickness of the second layer as compared to the first would not make the invention perform differently: that is, the second layer would house the magnets regardless of its thickness as compared to the first.
Regarding claim 33, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the fitting surface is sandwiched between the corresponding magnetic members of the first petal and the second petal. However, Chen appears to make this obvious based on the placement of the magnets in Figs 5 and 6. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Forutanpour to use magnets between the fitting surface as taught and suggested by Chen because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a ball with magnets around the rim, and a ball with a rim that has magnets positioned under the fitting surface) according to known methods (the magnets under the fitting surface) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use magnets on the rims, the magnets mounted under the fitting surface so that the magnets are not exposed).
Regarding claim 34, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the rim portion extends radially inwards beyond an inner surface of the shell. However, Chen appears to make this obvious based on Fig. 6. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Forutanpour to make the rim portion extend radially inwards beyond an inner surface of the shell as taught and suggested by Chen because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a ball with magnets around the rim, and a ball with a rim that has magnets positioned on a rim out past the inner surface of the shell) according to known methods (the magnets in a rim that extends out past the inner shell) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use magnets on the rims, the magnets mounted on a rim that extends past the outer shell).
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour (US Pub. No. 2014/0221136; as cited in applicant’s IDS) in view of Xiong (US Pat. No. 11,786,835 B1; as cited in applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 36, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the shell has a thickness of between 0.2 mm to 1 mm. However, Forutanpour discloses balls that inherently have a shell thickness (Fig. 18, item 125) and can be used for impact on another person (par. [0055]; noting dodgeball). In addition, Xiong discloses a similar type of ball wherein the shell has a thickness of 0.2 to 1 mm (col. 9, lines 32-39; noting greater than 0.3 mm makes obvious the claimed range). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Forutanpour to make the shell portion have a thickness of between 0.2 and 1 mm as taught by Xiong because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a ball with some inherent shell thickness used for impact and a ball with a shell thickness of greater than 0.3 mm) according to known methods (using a shell thickness of greater than 0.3 mm) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to a ball that impacts other people, the shell thickness being 0.3 mm or greater and known to work on a ball that impacts people).
Regarding claim 37, it is noted that Forutanpour does not specifically disclose that the rim portion has a thickness of between 2.5 mm to 5 mm. However, Forutanpour discloses balls that inherently have a rim thickness (Fig. 18, item 125) and can be used for impact on another person (par. [0055]; noting dodgeball). In addition, Xiong discloses a similar type of ball wherein the rim has a thickness of 2.5 to 5 mm (col. 9, lines 32-39; noting greater than 2 mm for the “mounting frame” makes obvious the claimed range). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Forutanpour to make the rim portion have a thickness of between 2.5 and 5 mm as taught by Xiong because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a ball with some inherent rim thickness used for impact and a ball with a rim thickness of greater than 2 mm) according to known methods (using a rim thickness of greater than 2.0 mm) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to a ball that impacts other people, the rim thickness being 2.0 mm or greater and known to work on a ball that impacts people).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-22, 31, 32 and 35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 32-45, 47, 51, and 52 of copending Application No. 17/549,920 (reference application) in view of Forutanpour (US Pub. No. 2014/0221136).
Claim 18 of the current application, as newly presented, now claims:
18. (New) A toy water ball, comprising: a first petal and a second petal, each of the two petals includes: a soft and flexible sheet configured as a portion of a shell; a rim portion having a plurality of magnetic members embedded within and spaced along first rim portion; and a connecting member that connects the two petals to each other, wherein: the toy water ball is movable between a closed state and an open state, the plurality of petals form a closed water-carrying cavity in the closed state; and each of the plurality of magnetic members of the first petal is aligned to interact with one of the plurality of magnetic members of the second petal, the corresponding magnetic members on different petals attract each other in the closed state by an attraction force sufficient to cause the rim portions of the two petals to form a seal.
Claim 32 of the 17/549,920 application claims:
32. (Currently Amended) A toy water ball, comprising: a first petal comprising an elastic silicone material, the first petal further comprising a silicone sheet configured as a first hemispherical shell, a first edge portion comprising a first fitting surface, and a first magnetic member mounted and fixed inside the first edge portion away from the first fitting surface; and a second petal comprising an elastic silicone material, the second petal further comprising a silicone sheet configured as a second hemispherical shell, a second edge portion comprising a second fitting surface, and a second magnetic member mounted and fixed inside the second edge portion away from the second fitting surface, wherein the toy water ball is movable between a closed state and an open state, wherein the first magnetic member and the second magnetic member are configured to generate a magnetic attraction force when the toy water ball
is in the closed state, the first petal and the second petal forming a closed water-carrying cavity when the toy water ball is in the closed state, wherein the magnetic attraction force is sufficient to cause the first edge portion and the second edge portion to contact each other, wherein the toy water ball is configured such that when placed into water while in the open state and moved to the closed state while still in the water, the first petal and the second petal form the closed water-carrying cavity by way of the magnetic attraction force, the closed water-carrying cavity having at least a portion of the water stored therein, and wherein the toy water ball is configured such that when removed from the water in the closed state and is thrown and hits an object, the first petal and the second petal separate and turn the toy water ball to the open state thereby causing the water stored in the closed water-carrying cavity to be released.
Claim 51 of the 17/549,920 application claims:
51. (Currently Amended) A toy water ball, comprising: a first petal comprising an elastic silicone material, the first petal further comprising a silicone sheet configured as a first hemispherical shell, a first edge portion comprising a first fitting surface, and at least five first magnetic members mounted and fixed inside the first edge portion away from the first fitting surface; and a second petal comprising an elastic silicone material, the second petal further comprising a silicone sheet configured as a second hemispherical shell, a second edge portion comprising a second fitting surface, and at least five second magnetic members mounted and fixed inside the second edge portion away from the second fitting surface, wherein the toy water ball is movable between a closed state and an open state, wherein the first magnetic members and the second magnetic members are configured to generate a magnetic attraction force when the toy water ball is in the closed state, the first petal and the second petal forming a closed water-carrying cavity when the toy water ball is in the closed state, wherein positions of the first magnetic members are arranged in one-to-one correspondence with positions of the second magnetic members, wherein the magnetic attraction force is sufficient to cause the first edge portion and the second edge portion to contact each other, wherein the toy water ball is configured such that when placed into water while in the open state and moved to the closed state while still in the water, the first petal and the second petal form the closed water-carrying cavity by way of the magnetic attraction force, the closed water-carrying cavity having at least a portion of the water stored therein, and wherein the toy water ball is configured such that when removed from the water in the closed state and is thrown and hits an object, the first petal and the second petal separate and turn the toy water ball to the open state thereby causing the water stored in the closed water-carrying cavity
to be released.
As can clearly be seen above, the later filed claim 18 of this current application is broader in scope than claims 32 and 51 of the ‘920 application. As such, claims 32 and 51 make obvious the claim language 18 of this current application and a terminal disclaimer is warranted.
For claim 19, see claim 34 of the ‘920 application
For claim 20, see claim 35 of the ‘920 application
For claim 21, the claim is simply a product-by-process limitation; see also claim 43 making obvious “integrally molding”
For claim 22, see Forutanpour: Fig. 17
For claim 31, see Forutanpour: Fig. 5 and claim 45
For claim 32, see Forutanpour: Fig. 5
For claim 35, see claim 45 (claiming specifics of a watertight seal)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 17/549,920 application to use the concave mating surfaces that deform and seal water tight in combination with the evenly spaced out magnets as claimed in claims 19-22, 31, 32, and 35 as taught by Forutanpour because both the ‘920 application and Forutanpour are directed toward balls with hollow cavities and magnets positioned around the respective rims to keep closed two halves of the ball. As such, combining the references would yield completely predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. With that said, a notice of allowance has been sent out for the 17/549,920 application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (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 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.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
10/1/26
