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 .
Oath/Declaration
Note the office communication from 5/12/2022 as missing inventors’ oath or declaration. As of mailing this office action, the office as yet to receive such missing items.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 12-13, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al US 2017/0203173 (“Nguyen”) in view of Schroeder US 5,478,068 (“Schroeder”) and Givens US 2019/0076712 (“Givens”).
As per claim 1, Nguyen discloses equipment for playing basketball (Figs. 1-7; paragraphs [0028]-[0071]), comprising: a base having a front (base 1 with a front)(Figs.3a-4b; [0028]-[0029]; note the examiner’s markings hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 3a), a frame (central frame 5)([0032]; Figs. 2a-5a and 7) and two lateral structures being carried by the frame (construed as lateral wheels 6 attached at each side thereof)(Fisg. 1a-3a and 4; also note the examiner’s markings) with the frame and two lateral structures forming a U-like shaped housing therebetween (the frame and wheel forming a U shape housing for element 2 in the folded position, e.g., Figs. 1a and 1b);
PNG
media_image1.png
635
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a post having an upper post section carrying a board on which a basketball hoop is mounted , the post also having a lower post section with a rear wall, the lower post section is rotatably mounted to the front end of the frame of the base (element 2 includes an upper portion 2a mounted to element 3 carrying backboard 4 and hoop 4b; element 2 includes lower portion 2b mounted to the front base)(Figs. 3a-4b and 5; [0050[-[0060]) and adjustable between a stowed storage configuration in which at least the lower post section is disposed in the housing (Figs. 1a and1b; [0030] and [0045]) and an upright use configuration (Figs. 3a-4b; [0028]-[0030]);
a connecting arm with a front end hinged on the rear wall of the lower post section and a rear end hinged on the frame of the base, the rear end being disposed on the frame in the U-like shaped housing (linking arm 8 connected lower section 2b with frame/base 1)(Figs. 2b-5a, 6 and 7; [0038]-[0045]), the connecting arm being configured to be reversibly hinged in a deployed configuration for holding the post in an upright use configuration and also configured to hold the post in a folded storage configuration (note Figs. 1a and 1b as the device in the folded configuration as the position of linking arm 8 and Figs. 3a-4 as the position of linking arm 8, at the upright configuration; note also [0038]-[0046] regarding the manipulation of linking arm 8, as the basketball equipment translates between a deployed-upright configuration and a folded-storage configuration; in particular note [0042]-[0044] as studs 11 to engage with plate 12 for securing the device in the upright or storage configurations while manipulating linking arm 8 for such movement between the upright configuration and the storage configuration);
the upper post section being slidably mounted on the lower post section (upper portions 2a slides within lower portion 2b)(Figs. 4a and 4b; [0059]); an actuating system configured to move the upper post section between a retracted storage position and at least one projecting position corresponding to a height of use, the actuation system comprising a first case fastened on the rear wall of the lower post section and a first actuator mechanism for moving the upper post section which is housed in the first case (actuating system includes a crank 20 to raise and/or lower section 2a relative to section 2b)(Figs. 4a-5 and 5b; [0061]-[0071]); and the first actuator mechanism comprising a handling socket and is disposed on the first case (case 21 with “an opening” to receive the crank 20; note: the examiner, in the broadest and most reasonable manner, construed the term “socket” according to its plain and ordinary meanings as “an opening or hollow that forms a holder for something”, according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary)(Figs. 3b, 5 and 5b; [0061]) and wherein the housing is arranged to receive the lower post section in the stowed configuration while preventing access to the handling socket (note at least Figs. 1a and 1b as the housing (as marked above) configure to receive lower post (element 2) within; note at least Figs. 5 and 5a as element 2 includes casing 20; thus, while in the folded configuration, at least the backboard 4, prevents access to the case-socket (Figs. 1a and 1b).
Nguyen is not specific regarding the connecting arm having two segments which are hinged together at a central hinge, the two segments being configured to be reversibly hinged in the deployed configuration for holding the post in an upright use configuration and also configured to hold the post in the folded storage configuration.
Nguyen is not specific regarding the first actuator mechanism comprising the handling socket which is disposed on and projects from the rear wall of the first case.
With respect to the connecting arm, Schroeder discloses a connecting arm (brace 50) having two segments (brace 52 and brace 54) which are hinged together at a central hinge (at lock mechanism 60)(Figs. 1-3; 4:3-30; 5:23-43), the two segments being configured to be reversibly hinged in the deployed configuration for holding the post in an upright use configuration (Figs. 1 and 3) and also configured to hold the post in the folded storage configuration (Fig. 2; in conjunction to 4:3-30 and 5:23-43 as the manipulation of brace 50 as the basketball goal translate between upright position and folded position). 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 Nguyen’s connecting arm having two segments which are hinged together at a central hinge, the two segments being configured to be reversibly hinged in the deployed configuration for holding the post in an upright use configuration and also configured to hold the post in the folded storage configuration for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known mechanical means in the same way configure to hold the post in the upright use configuration as well as to hold the post in a folded storage configuration.
With respect to the actuator means, Givens discloses a first actuator mechanism comprising a handling socket which projects from the first case, and is disposed on a rear wall of the first case (actuator assembly 132, including crankshaft 138; housing 300 with a socket (head portion 306 with opening 308) extending from arear wall of the case/housing 300 (Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 5; [0026]-[0031]). 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 Nguyen’s first actuator mechanism comprising the handling socket which is disposed on and projects from the rear wall of the first case for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known manner to couple an actuator mechanism to a basketball goal assembly configure to lower and raise the goal as desired. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Nguyen to include an actuator mechanism coupled to the goal for adjust its height as desired.
As per claim 2, Nguyen discloses wherein the two lateral structures form a counterweight to the post in the upright use configuration of the equipment (wheels 6, i.e., two lateral structures to be filled with ballast material)([0033] in conjunction to Figs. 3a-4b) .
As per claim 6, Nguyen discloses wherein the lower post section is equipped with at least one foot which is disposed laterally in order to stabilize the post in the upright use configuration (such as leges 15)(Figs. 3a, 4a, 6 and 7; [0048] and [0060]).
As per claim 12, with respect to wherein the upper section comprises an upper segment carrying the board and a lower segment slidably mounted on the lower post section, the upper segment being slidably mounted on the lower segment; by means of a second actuation system, the second actuation system having a second case fastened on a rear wall of the lower segment and a second actuator mechanism for moving the upper segment which is housed in the second case, the second actuator mechanism comprising a handling socket which projects from the second case, the socket is disposed on a rear wall of the second case, the housing being arranged to receive the lower segment in the stowed configuration while preventing access to said socket, note Figs. 3a-45 and 5b in conjunction to [0049]-[0057] as the backboard 4a carried by element 3 to be connected to post 2 (via section 2a); the backboard carrying element is attached thereto via handle 16 (e.g., Figs. 5 and 5b), which construed as the second actuation system of the backboard/rim, within Nguyen.
As per claim 13, with respect to wherein the board is rotatably mounted on the upper end of the upper post section with a rotational mechanism, the board being rotatable between an angular use position and an angular storage position, note Nguyen in at least Fig. 1a, as the device in a storage position and at least Figs. 3a-4 the use position/s, as the position of the backboard; also note at [0029], [0037] and [0050]-[0053] as the backboard mounted in rotation thereto.
As per claim 15, with respect to wherein the hoop has a lateral extension which is rotatably mounted around an axis secured to a support fastened on the board configured to permit the hoop be stowed from a horizontal use position into a vertical storage position against the board, note Figs. 1a and [0050] and [0052] regarding the folding of hoop 4b upon backboard 4a, of Nguyen.
As per claim 16, with respect to wherein access from above the housing to the first case and handling socket is prevented by the board when the lower post section is in the stored position, note at least Figs. 1a and 1b as the housing (as marked above) configure to receive lower post (element 2) within; note at least Figs. 5 and 5a as element 2 includes casing 20; thus, while in the folded configuration, at least the backboard 4, prevents access to the case-socket (Figs. 1a and 1b), within Nguyen .
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen, Schroeder and Givens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Staka US 5,238,251 (“Staka”)
As per claim 7, Nguyen discloses wherein the upper post section is slidably mounted in the lower post section (Figs. 4a-4b; [0059]),
Nguyen is not specific regarding the actuation system comprising a vertical row of orifices formed on the rear face of the upper first section and a first actuator mechanism comprising a gear wheel which is rotatably actuated by a worm screw, the gear wheel being configured to fit into the vertical row of orifices for sliding of the upper post section in the lower post section.
However, Staka discloses an actuation system comprising a vertical row of orifices formed on a rear face of an upper first section and a first actuator mechanism comprising a gear wheel which is rotatably actuated by a worm screw, the gear wheel being configured to fit into the vertical row of orifices for sliding of the upper post section in the lower post section (upright post 24, with a plurality of apertures 54, position within an upright support 22, and configure to slide within, via an actuator assembly that includes a handle 30, a worm gear 40 and gear/s (such as a gear 44 and a sprocket 46)(Figs. 1-4; 4:49-5:36). 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 Nguyen’s actuation system to move the upper post as needed using known mechanical means as a matter of providing a simple substitution for one known element (Nguyen’s actuation system) for another (Staka’s actuation system). In that regard, Nguyen in [0070]+ explicitly suggested that other actuation systems can be utilized with his basketball equipment (to includes ratchet wheel with teeth, e.g., gears).
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the gear wheel is rotatably mounted in the case along a frontal axis A1,the frontal axis Al being in a vertical plane parallel to the frontal plane of the upright post and in a horizontal plane perpendicular to the vertical plane of the upright post, the screw being rotatably mounted in the case along a sagittal axis A2, the sagittal axis A2 being located in a sagittal plane of the upright post and a horizontal plane perpendicular to the vertical plane of the upright post, note Staka’s Figs. 1-3. 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 Nguyen’s wherein the gear wheel is rotatably mounted in the case along a frontal axis A1,the frontal axis Al being in a vertical plane parallel to the frontal plane of the upright post and in a horizontal plane perpendicular to the vertical plane of the upright post, the screw being rotatably mounted in the case along a sagittal axis A2, the sagittal axis A2 being located in a sagittal plane of the upright post and a horizontal plane perpendicular to the vertical plane of the upright post for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein the first actuation mechanism comprises a first gear wheel and a second gear wheel each with a different diameter and the first and second gear wheels being secured in rotation, the first gear wheel with a larger diameter being fitted into the vertical row of orifices and the second gear wheel with a smaller diameter being actuated by the worm screw, note Staka’s Figs. 1-4; 4:49+ as the use of gears 44 and 46 to engage with worm 40. Within the modified Nguyen the actuator means would have included a first actuation means (as taught by Nguyen, i.e., crank means 20) and such actuator mechanism would have included gears and worm gear (as taught by Staka). 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 Nguyen’s wherein the first actuation mechanism comprises a first gear wheel and a second gear wheel each with a different diameter and the first and second gear wheels being secured in rotation, the first gear wheel with a larger diameter being fitted into the vertical row of orifices and the second gear wheel with a smaller diameter being actuated by the worm screw for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
As per claim 10, with respect to wherein a crank handle is removably on the handling socket for rotatably manipulating the worm screw, note Staka’s Figs. 2 and 3 (4:49+) regarding handle 30 position the post between raise position and lower position. Also, note Nguyen’s Figs. 5 and 5b regarding crank 20. The examiner takes the position that the crank means, taught by Nguyen and/or Staka, is fully capable to be removably mounted thereto. If there is any doubt regarding such interpretation, the examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that such removable crank would have been obvious to incorporate within Nguyen-Staka as it is known in the art that such removable crank is for purposes of storage and/or maintenance.
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein the worm screw is arranged to require a manipulation of the handling socket to actuate movement the upper post section, note Staka’s Figs. 1-4 (e.g., 5:9-36) regarding handle 30 to manipulate worm 40 to translate the upper post (24) between a raise position and lower position relative to post 22. Within the modified Nguyen the actuation mechanism (to include the worm screw, taught by Staka) is to actuate movement of the upper post section (as taught by Nguyen). 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 Nguyen’s wherein the worm screw is arranged to require a manipulation of the handling socket to actuate movement the upper post section for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dolan US 3,841,631 (“Dolan”)
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein the board is reversibly mounted on the upper post section between a mounted use position and a dismounted storage position, the post in the storage configuration enabling the storage of the dismounted board on the base, note Fig. 1a as the storage position and at least Figs. 3a-4 the use position/s, as the position of the backboard 4a; also note at [0029], [0037] and [0050]-[0053] as the backboard mounted in rotation thereto, of Nguyen.
Nguyen is not specific regarding wherein the board is physically disconnected and dismounted from the upper post section when in the dismounted storage position, the upper post section and the lower post section being folded in relation to the base in the storage configuration enabling the storage of the dismounted board on above the base.
However, Dolan discloses wherein a board is physically disconnected and dismounted from the upper post section (backstop 12 (i.e., backboard) disconnected form upper section 29 via connecting means 16)(Fig. 1; 2:53-67) when in a dismounted storage position (Fig. 3), an upper post section and a lower post section (sections 29 and 28)(Fig. 1; 3:16-50) being folded in relation to a base (base 18; in a folded position, Fig. 3 5:54+) and in a storage configuration enabling the storage of the dismounted board above the base (backstop/backboard 12, in the folded position, is dismounted above base 18)(Fig. 3; 5:54+). 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 Nguyen’s wherein the board is physically disconnected and dismounted from the upper post section when in the dismounted storage position, the upper post section and the lower post section being folded in relation to the base in the storage configuration enabling the storage of the dismounted board above the base for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as a matter of obvious engineering choice as forming the backboard, either as integral with the upper post (as taught by Nguyen) or separate therefrom (as taught by Dolan), while the basketball equipment in the folded, storage configuration. To that end See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) as the Federal Circuit have held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. The basketball device of Nguyen would have been “equally suitable” to be in the storage configuration with either the backboard rotate upon the post or physically removed therefrom, as the “size/volume” of the basketball equipment in the folded configuration would have remained in the same storage capacity/volume.
Furthermore, such modification to Nguyen, wherein the board is physically disconnected and dismounted from the upper post section when in the dismounted storage position, the upper post section and the lower post section being folded in relation to the base in the storage configuration enabling the storage of the dismounted board on above the base, would have been obvious as using of a known technique to improve similar device in the same way to position the backboard upon the base while the equipment for playing basketball is in the stowed-storage configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 6-15 have been considered but are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and are partially not persuasive.
With respect to the Nguyen reference, applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations within amended claim 1, to recites “the first actuator mechanism comprising the handling socket which is disposed on and projects from the rear wall of the first case” (e.g., remarks page 6) are moot as such new limitations are taught by the reference to Givens as set forth above.
Applicant argued that Nguyen’s actuator means do not includes any “socket as claimed” (remarks pages 6-7). The examine respectfully disagrees.
As stated above, in the broadest and most reasonable manner, the examiner construed the term “socket” according to its plain and ordinary meanings as “an opening or hollow that forms a holder for something” (according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary). As reproduce hereinafter, the case 20 to receive the crank handle 21, is clearly “an opening or hollow that forms a holder for something”
PNG
media_image2.png
739
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also consider Nguyen [0061] “In relation with the FIGS. 5, the system for actuating comprises a strap 19 of which a first end is fastened to the second portion 2b, said strap being mounted on a means for winding around its second end. In particular, the means for winding comprises a crank 20 mounted on the second portion 2b, in particular on a case 21 carried by said second portion and inside of which the second end of the strap 19 opens in order to be wound around said crank.”
With respect to the Schroeder reference, applicant discussed the reference to Schroeder and concluded “One of skill in the art would have had no reason to substitute the hinge of Schroeder for a solid linking arm 8 of Nguyen because the solid linking arm of Nguyen already allowed for the lower post 2, 2b to be stowed in the housing and substituting the Schroeder hinge arrangement would prevent that from happening” (remarks pages 7-8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Aside from such assertions been applicant’s own conclusions, not based upon what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, it is further noted that it has been held that “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”) One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant need to consider what is that the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, to evaluate the proposed combination. Applicant attempted to show that the “connecting arm” of Schroeder “cannot be plugged-in” (i.e., bodily incorporated into the structure) within the device of Nguyen, is not such evaluation of how such mechanical means can be utilized while facilitate the movement of a basketball goal from used-to-stowed positions. As set forth above, modify Nguyen as the connecting arm having two segments which are hinged together at a central hinge, the two segments being configured to be reversibly hinged in the deployed configuration for holding the post in an upright use configuration and also configured to hold the post in the folded storage configuration, would have been obvious for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known mechanical means in the same way configure to hold the post in the upright use configuration as well as to hold the post in a folded storage configuration. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Nguyen to utilized a well-known mechanical arrangement, as a connecting arm, to facilitate the movement of the basketball goal between a used configuration and a stowed configuration.
Conclusion
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 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 9/22/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights