DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. Pursuant to the amendment filed March 4, 2026, claims 18-37 are pending in the application. The applicant has amended claims 18 and 26.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
4. Claims 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,390,690. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of US 12,390,690 discloses, teaches, and suggests all the limitations of claim 1 of the current application.
Claims 19-30 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 18 because claims 19-30 depend from claim 18.
Claims 19-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,390,690. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1-20 of US 12,390,690 disclose, teach, and suggest all the limitations of claims 19-30 of the current application.
Claims 20-22 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 19 because claims 20-22 depend from claim 19.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 23 because claims 24 and 25 depend from claim 23.
Claims 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,390,690. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 11 of US 12,390,690 disclose, teach, and suggest all the limitations of claim 18 of the current application.
Claims 32-37 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 31 because claims 32-37 depend from claim 31.
Claims 32-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,390,690. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of US 12,390,690 disclose, teach, and suggest all the limitations of claims 32-37 of the current application.
Claims 34-37 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 33 because claims 34-37 depend from claim 33.
Claims 35 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 34 because claim 35 depend from claim 34.
Claims 37 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 36 because claim 37 depend from claim 36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
6. Claims 18-27, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodchild (US 2023/0033421 A1) in view of Evans (US 4,934,060).
Regarding claim 18, Goodchild discloses:
a system for tracking a sports object ([0071]) comprising:
a sports object having a core assembly enclosed within a shell ([0046], [0047]; FIG. 2: 102, 103, 106; FIG. 3: 102, 106), wherein the core assembly comprises:
a rechargeable energy storage device arranged within the spherical shell ([0051]; FIG. 3: 306); and
Goodchild does not explicitly disclose a multi-layer printed circuit board (PCB) comprised of one or more contacts, but Goodchild does disclose a printed circuit board (PCB) that comprises a plurality of electronic components ([0047], [0051]; FIG. 3: 106, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307), which suggests that the PCB comprises one or more contacts for the benefit of enabling the PCB to be electrically coupled to the plurality of electronic components, and which further suggests that the PCB is multi-layered for the benefit of employing a method of fabrication of the PCB that is common in the PCB industry, especially for a PCB that hosts multiple electronic components;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the PCB of Goodchild in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the PCB to be electrically coupled to a plurality of electronic components and would have enabled the system to employ a method of fabrication of the PCB that is common in the PCB industry, especially for a PCB that hosts multiple electronic components;
the PCB configured to at least partially envelope the energy storage device ([005 1], [0053]; FIG. 3: 306; Goodchild discloses that the energy storage device is installed on and electrically connected to the PCB, which constitutes that the PCB is configured to at least partially envelop the energy storage device);
wherein that the PCB is configured to communicate with an external transceiver ([0139]); and
a plurality of antennas arranged within the spherical shell, wherein the one or more contacts of the PCB are configured to connect to the plurality of antennas ([0052], [0053]).
Goodchild does not disclose:
the spherical shell having a first and second section, wherein the first and second sections are mated at an interface operable to hold the sections together.
Evans, addressing the same problem how to assemble a spherical sports object, teaches a device for helping a golfer line up a putt on a putting green, comprising a spherical casing that has a first hemispherical half and a second hemispherical half, both of which include means for securing, preferably snapping, the halves together (col. 1, lines 48-52) for the benefit that the secured halves form the spherical casing (col. 1, lines 48-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Evans with the system, of Goodchild because that would have enabled the system to secure two halves to form a spherical casing.
Regarding claim 19, Goodchild discloses that the external transceiver is a user device. ([0054], [0139]; FIG. 4: 401)
Regarding claim 20, Goodchild discloses that the user device is configured to be in communication with a database configured for selectively storing data related to the sports object. ([0055], [0056])
Regarding claim 21, Goodchild discloses that the user device is a database configured for selectively storing data related to the sports object. ([0056])
Regarding claim 22, Goodchild discloses that the sports object and the user device are in wireless communication. ([0052], [0073])
Regarding claim 23, Goodchild discloses that the sports object provides an object communication device. ([0051]; FIG. 3: 302)
Regarding claim 24, Goodchild discloses that the sports object further provides a microcontroller that is configured to control and facilitate communication of data between the sports object and the external transceiver. ([0051]; FIG. 3: 302)
Regarding claim 25, Goodchild discloses that the object communication device and microcontroller are arranged on the PCB. ([0051]; FIG. 3: 106, 302)
Regarding claim 26, Goodchild discloses:
the PCB includes a plurality of sections (Goodchild suggests that the PCB comprises multiple layers; see the rejection of claim 1 above) and
each section of the plurality of sections supports one or more components selected from an inertial movement sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer ([0051]; FIG. 3: 303), a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver, a magnetometer ([0051]; FIG. 3: 0304), a haptic controller, a temperature sensor, a processor ([0302]), a memory storage device ([0051]; FIG. 1: 302), a BT low energy baseband controller ([0051]; FIG. 3: 302), a UWB baseband controller, a cellular baseband controller ([0139]), a long range (LORA) radio communication baseband controller, a near field communications (NFC) controller ([0051]; FIG. 3: 302; Goodchild discloses a Bluetooth controller, and Bluetooth is a near field communications protocol, or an energy contact ([0051]; FIG. 3: 306).
Regarding claim 27, Goodchild does not explicitly disclose that the energy storage device has a cylindrical, spherical, or prismatic shape, but Goodchild does disclose an energy storage device ((005 1]), which is a battery, and reliable batteries are commonly cylindrical, which suggests that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have determined through routine experimentation to employ a cylindrical battery for the benefit of employing a type of battery that is readily available and reliable.
It is noted that the claim recites cylindrical, spherical, or prismatic shapes in the alternative, which indicates that any of these shapes would operate equally well in the claimed invention, so the shape of the battery does not have criticality for the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, Goodchild discloses that the plurality of antennas includes one or more of an ultra-wide band antenna, a blue tooth antenna, a global positioning system antenna, or an NFC antenna. ([0052], [0053])
Regarding claim 30, Goodchild discloses that the first antenna includes one or more of an ultra-wideband antenna, a global positioning antenna, or an NFC antenna and the second antenna includes one or more of a blue tooth antenna. ([0052], [0053])
7. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodchild in view of Moon (US 2015/009629 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Goodchild does not disclose that the core assembly further comprises a resin surrounding the PCB and the various electronic components and the energy storage device.
Moon, addressing the same problem of how to arrange a PCB, teaches an electronic control apparatus fora vehicle, wherein electronic components and a PCB and a connector are enclosed by a mold resin ([0025]), for the benefit that a waterproof function is excellent ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Moon with the system of Goodchild because that would have enabled the system to achieve excellent waterproof function.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 31 is allowed.
Claims 32-37 are allowed because claims 32-37 depend from claim 31.
Response to Arguments
9. The applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
10. The applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689