Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/003,582

COLUMN CONFIGURATION FOR SPORTING EQUIPMENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 26, 2020
Examiner
KLAYMAN, AMIR ARIE
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
P&P Imports LLC
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
62%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allow Rate
327 granted / 946 resolved
-35.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
993
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.7%
+5.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 946 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prismall US 2006/0113514 (“Prismall”). As per claim 1, Prismall discloses a portable equipment assembly (embodiment of Fig. 4 and paragraph [0034] in conjunction to Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0023]-[0032] and [0035]) comprising: a column insertable through a base (tube 10 insert to base 12/18)(Fig. 4 in conjunction to Fig. 1 (regarding post/tube 10)), the column including a tapered foundation disposed substantially along a lower portion of the column such that a diameter of the tapered foundation increases toward a bottom of the column (taper clamping 26)(Fig. 4; [0034]); and the base (12/18), wherein the base comprises an opening therethrough (recess 22)(Fig. 4; in conjunction to at least [0026]-[0028]) and is configured to receive the column via the opening (Fig. 4), the opening having a taper that is substantially complimentary to and configured to engage with the tapered foundation of the column (Fig. 4); wherein the diameter of the tapered foundation of the column is characterized by a first taper along the lower portion of the column comprising a first increasing width of the tapered foundation along a first horizontal direction and a second taper along the lower portion of the column comprising a second increasing width of the tapered foundation along a second horizontal direction, wherein the first increasing width is different from the second increasing width (Fig. 4 in conjunction to the examiner’s markings hereinafter), the first and second horizontal directions are substantially perpendicular to an angle of entry of the column into the opening of the base characterized by a position of the column after it is secured within the opening of the base, and the first horizontal direction is substantially perpendicular to a front of the base (Fig. 4 in conjunction to the examiner’s markings hereinafter). Examiner’s markings PNG media_image1.png 824 855 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to the device as “A portable sporting equipment assembly”, as recites in the preamble, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). As per claim 2, with respect to wherein the column is configured for insertion through a bottom of the base, note Fig. 4 as the tube 10 tapered foundation 26 to be inserted from the bottom of base 12/18. As per claim 3, with respect to wherein the column is removably attachable to the base via one or more notches engaging with one or more recessions, construed as bolts 30 securing tube 10/foundation 26 to base 12/18 in Fig. 4 (in conjunction to [0028] and [0030] regarding bolts 30). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prismall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagler US 9,347,196 (“Wagler”). As per claim 4, Prismall is nots specific regarding further comprising: one or more horizonal notches on the column configured to attach to a horizontal recession in an upper portion of the opening in the base. However, in a similar field of portable equipment assemblies, Wagler discloses one or more horizonal notches on a column configured to attach to a horizontal recession in an upper portion of an opening in the base (members 23 of post 12/21 (i.e., horizontal notches) to be fit within channel 20 of base 10 (i.e., horizontal recess)(Figs. 1 and 3; 4:17-54). Therefore, 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 to form Prismall’s further comprising: one or more horizonal notches on the column configured to attach to a horizontal recession in an upper portion of the opening in the base for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known fastening means to firmly connect the column with the base. As per claim 5, Prismall is not specific regarding wherein one or more horizontal notches secure the tapered foundation of the column into the base when engaged with a horizontal recession in an upper portion of the opening of the base. However, it is well-known to secure a post with a based utilizing horizontal notches to fit with complementary horizontal recession, as taught by Wagler (members 23 of post 12/21 (i.e., horizontal notches) to be fit within channel 20 of base 10 (i.e., horizontal recess)(Figs. 1 and 3; 4:17-54). Therefore, 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 to form Prismall’s wherein one or more horizontal notches secure the foundation of the column into the base when engaged with a horizontal recession in an upper portion of the opening of the base for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4. Within the modified Prismall- Wagler the foundation would have been tapered foundation (as taught by Prismall, e.g., Fig. 4). Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prismall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bibbens US 2015/0367219 (“Bibbens”). As per claim 6, Prismall is not specific regarding further comprising: a backboard attachable to an upper portion of the column; or a volleyball net attachable to the column. However, Bibbens discloses further comprising: a backboard attachable to an upper portion of a column (backboard 58 attached to pole 12)(Figs. 1, 2 and 5; [0020]); also. Therefore, 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 to form Prismall’s further comprising: a backboard attachable to an upper portion of the column as taught by Bibbens for the reasons that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to a known methods to yield predictable results of forming a multi-purposes device that is suitable to be used for many and different games, skills, recreational and alike, while provide a support thereof. As per claim 7, Prismall is not specific wherein the column includes a plate configured for insertion into a backboard. However, Bibbens discloses wherein a column includes a plate configured for insertion into a backboard (backboard 58 attached to pole 12 via backboard coupler 68)(Figs. 1, 2 and 5; [0020]). Therefore, 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 to form Prismall’s wherein the column includes a plate configured for insertion into a backboard as taught by Bibbens a for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6. As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the plate is removably attachable to a slot of the backboard, note Bibbens’ Figs. 1, 2 and 5 in conjunction to [0020] as backboard coupler 68 includes a first mating member 70 (of the backboard) and second mating member 74 (of the pole 12). As per claim 9, with respect to wherein the plate includes a raised edge configured to wedge the plate into a slot of the backboard, note Bibbens’ Figs. 1, 2 and 5 in conjunction to [0020] as backboard coupler 68 includes a first mating member 70 (of the backboard) and second mating member 74 (of the pole 12). Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibbens in view of Prismall. As per claim 10, Bibbens discloses a portable sporting equipment assembly (training device 10)(Figs. 1-5; at least pars. [0015]-[0017], [0020] and [0021]) comprising: a base including an opening therethrough (base 28 with socket 36 )(Figs. 1-5; note Fig. 2 regarding socket 36; [0017]); and a column insertable through the opening (column 12 to be inserted through socket 36 via bottom end 32)(Figs. 1 and 2), the column including a vertical plate configured for insertion into a backboard (such as mating member 74 to backboard 58)(Figs. 1 and 5; [0020]); wherein: the base is configured to receive the column via the opening (Figs.1 2 and 5). Bibbens is not specific regarding the opening comprises a taper that is complimentary to a tapered foundation of the column, a diameter of the tapered foundation is characterized by a first taper along a lower portion of the column, the first taper comprising a first increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a first horizontal direction and a second taper along the lower portion of the column, the second taper comprising a second increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a second horizontal direction, the first increasing width is different from the second increasing width, the first and second horizontal directions are substantially perpendicular to an angle of entry of the column into the opening of the base characterized by a position of the column after it is and secured within the opening of the base, and the first horizontal direction is substantially perpendicular to a front of the base. However, in a field of portable an equipment assembly, Prismall discloses an opening comprises a taper that is complimentary to a tapered foundation of the column (recess 22 complementary to clamping member 26 of tube 10)(Fig. 4 in conjunction to [0023]-[0028]), a diameter of the tapered foundation is characterized by a first taper along a lower portion of the column, the first taper comprising a first increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a first horizontal direction and a second taper along the lower portion of the column, the second taper comprising a second increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a second horizontal direction, the first increasing width is different from the second increasing width (Fig. 4 in conjunction to the examiner’s markings above with respect to claim 1), the first and second horizontal directions are substantially perpendicular to an angle of entry of the column into the opening of the base characterized by a position of the column after it is and secured within the opening of the base, and the first horizontal direction is substantially perpendicular to a front of the base (Fig. 4 in conjunction to the examiner’s markings above with respect to claim 1). Therefore, 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 to form Bibbens’ opening comprises a taper that is complimentary to a tapered foundation of the column, a diameter of the tapered foundation is characterized by a first taper along a lower portion of the column, the first taper comprising a first increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a first horizontal direction and a second taper along the lower portion of the column, the second taper comprising a second increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a second horizontal direction, the first increasing width is different from the second increasing width, the first and second horizontal directions are substantially perpendicular to an angle of entry of the column into the opening of the base characterized by a position of the column after it is and secured within the opening of the base, and the first horizontal direction is substantially perpendicular to a front of the base for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical fastening means to provide a firm and sturdy connection between the column-to-base. As per claim 11, with respect to wherein the diameter of the tapered foundation increases toward a bottom of the column, note Prismall’s Fig. 4 as marked above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, 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 to form Bibbens’ wherein the diameter of the tapered foundation increases toward a bottom of the column for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of a known mechanical configuration of a foundation-to- column to provide sturdy and firm connection thereof. As per claim 12, with respect to wherein the column is configured for insertion through a bottom of the base, note Prismall’s Fig. 4 as the tube 10 tapered foundation 26 to be inserted from the bottom of base 12/18. Therefore, 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 to form Bibbens’ wherein the column is configured for insertion through a bottom of the base for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known technique to insert the column to the base while maintaining a firm connection between the base-to-column. As per claim 13, with respect to wherein the column is removably attachable to the base via one or more notches engaging with one or more recessions, construed as bolts 30 securing tube 10/foundation 26 to base 12/18 in Fig. 4 (in conjunction to [0028] and [0030] regarding bolts 30)., within Prismall. Therefore, 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 to form Bibbens’ wherein the column is removably attachable to the base via one or more notches engaging with one or more recessions for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical fastening means to insure the base-to-column connection is firm and sturdy, yet allow easier removal thereof for storage, transportation, maintenance, and alike. As per claim 14, with respect to wherein the backboard includes a slot configured to receive the vertical plate, note Bibbens’ Figs. 1, 2 and 5 in conjunction to [0020] as backboard coupler 68 includes a first mating member 70 (of the backboard) and second mating member 74 (of the pole 12). As per claim 15, with respect to wherein the vertical plate includes a raised edge configured to wedge into the slot, note Bibbens’ Figs. 1, 2 and 5 in conjunction to [0020] as backboard coupler 68 includes a first mating member 70 (of the backboard) and second mating member 74 (of the pole 12). As per claim 16, with respect to wherein the vertical plate is removably attachable to the backboard via a raised edge configured to wedge the vertical plate into a slot of the backboard, note Bibbens’ Figs. 1, 2 and 5 in conjunction to [0020] as backboard coupler 68 includes a first mating member 70 (of the backboard) and second mating member 74 (of the pole 12). Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibbens and Prismall as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Davis et al US 5,632,480 (“Davis”). As per claim 18, Bibbens is not specific regarding wherein the vertical plate is attachable to the column via a bolt insertable through any of one or more depressions of the vertical plate, such that the bolt is flush with or below a surface of the vertical plate. However, with respect to wherein the vertical plate is attachable to the column via a bolt insertable through any of the one or more depressions of the vertical plate, such that the bolt is flush with or below a surface of the vertical plate, note Davis Figs. 1 and 7 in conjunction to 5:18-22 wherein Davis states ”The upper tube 80 is further provided with a goal mounting bracket 102 including apertures 104. The goal 12 may be mounted to the bracket 102 by means of bolts or other fasteners extending through the backboard 14 and apertures 104 in a conventional manner.” Therefore, 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 to form Bibbens wherein the vertical plate is attachable to the column via a bolt insertable through any of one or more depressions of the vertical plate, such that the bolt is flush with or below a surface of the vertical plate for the reason a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using well-known mechanical fastening means to firmly and safely connects the column-to-plate-to-backboard. Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al US 9,458,645 (“King”) in view of Prismall. As per claim 19, King discloses a portable equipment assembly (modular kit 12)(at least in Figs. 1 and 2 and 3:22-4:67) comprising: a first column and a second column (right and left columns 40)(Fig. 1; 3:44-51); a first base having a first opening therethrough and a second base having a second opening therethrough (left and right bases 55) (Fig. 1; each base includes cavity 61 to receive pole 40 via wall member 50)(Fig. 1in conjunction to Fig. 2 and 3: 50-4:25), wherein the first column and/or the second column is insertable through the first opening and/or the second opening (Figs. 1 and 2; 3:44-4:25; see also Figs. 9 and 10 as such assembly of pols-to-bases), wherein the first and second columns are configured to support a net (such as fencing panel 28 supported therebetween)(Figs. 1 and 2; 4:26+; also see Figs. 9 and 10). With respect to the device as a portable sporting equipment assembly, as recites in the preamble, it is noted that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). King is not specific regarding the first column and the second column each including a tapered foundation such that a diameter of each tapered foundation increases toward a respective bottom of the first or second columns; and the first and second opening each having a taper that is substantially complimentary to the tapered foundation of the first and second columns, wherein the diameter of the tapered foundation is characterized by a first taper along a lower portion of the column, the first taper comprising a first increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a first horizontal direction and a second taper along the lower portion of the column, the second taper comprising a second increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a second horizontal direction, wherein the first increasing width is different from the second increasing width, the first and second horizontal directions are substantially perpendicular to an angle of entry of the column into the opening of the base characterized by a position of the column after it is secured within the opening of the base, and the first horizontal direction is substantially perpendicular to a front of the base. However, in a similar field of a portable equipment assembly/devices, Prismall discloses a column including a tapered foundation (taper clamping 26 of post 10)(Fig. 4; [0034] in conjunction to Fig. 1 and [0023]) such that a diameter of each tapered foundation increases toward a respective bottom of the first or second columns (Fig. 4 in conjunction to the examiner’s markings above with respect to claim 1); and the first and second opening each having a taper that is substantially complimentary to the tapered foundation of the first and second columns, wherein the diameter of the tapered foundation is characterized by a first taper along a lower portion of the column, the first taper comprising a first increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a first horizontal direction and a second taper along the lower portion of the column, the second taper comprising a second increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a second horizontal direction, wherein the first increasing width is different from the second increasing width(Fig. 4 in conjunction to the examiner’s markings above with respect to claim 1), the first and second horizontal directions are substantially perpendicular to an angle of entry of the column into the opening of the base characterized by a position of the column after it is secured within the opening of the base, and the first horizontal direction is substantially perpendicular to a front of the base (Fig. 4 in conjunction to the examiner’s markings above with respect to claim 1). Therefore, 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 to form King’s the first column and the second column each including a tapered foundation such that a diameter of each tapered foundation increases toward a respective bottom of the first or second columns; and the first and second opening each having a taper that is substantially complimentary to the tapered foundation of the first and second columns, wherein the diameter of the tapered foundation is characterized by a first taper along a lower portion of the column, the first taper comprising a first increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a first horizontal direction and a second taper along the lower portion of the column, the second taper comprising a second increasing width of the tapered foundation corresponding to a second horizontal direction, wherein the first increasing width is different from the second increasing width, the first and second horizontal directions are substantially perpendicular to an angle of entry of the column into the opening of the base characterized by a position of the column after it is secured within the opening of the base, and the first horizontal direction is substantially perpendicular to a front of the base for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical fastening means to provide a firm and sturdy connection between the column-to-base. Within the modified King a first column and a second column (as taught by King) each including a tapered foundation (each includes a foundation, as taught by King; whereas each foundation been tapered, as taught by Prismall). As per claim 20, with respect to further comprising: the net, wherein the net is configured to attach to and extend between the first column and the second column, note King’s Figs. 1, 9 and 10 in conjunction to at least 4:26+ regarding fencing panel 28, i.e. a mesh fence thereof between right and left columns 40; With respect to wherein the tapered foundation is configured to counterbalance a tension force extending along the net, within the modified King by the teachings of Prismall the tapered foundation is configured to counterbalance a tension force extending along the net, as claimed, since the device of King and Prismall includes such tapers means (e.g. Prismall’s Fig. 4). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM. 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. /A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 1/28/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 26, 2020
Application Filed
Nov 30, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 27, 2022
Response Filed
Aug 24, 2022
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 30, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 10, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 26, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 06, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 19, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 26, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 29, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 24, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 25, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594477
FLEX GRIP SPORTS BALL PITCHING MACHINE TIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594468
GROMMET AND RACKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592132
ARCADE GAME WITH RFID READER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582919
Amusement Activity Station
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566041
Crossbow with Pulleys that Rotate Around Stationary Axes
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
62%
With Interview (+27.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 946 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month