DETAILED ACTION The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Title The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, in place of the use of: (Prov. # 63245980) the title could read: Expandable/Retractable Portable Net Frame. 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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 includes limitations directed towards "14. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 where the net/banner bracing may be any set number of piece(s) so that the total length is that of the net/banner frame. In one preferred embodiment, the net/banner bracing includes telescopic tubing that includes one or more interior tubes each sequentially smaller (or larger) in size so that the interior tubes can be nested within the largest tube and when fully extended create the overall length of the net/banner bracing." The claims are supposed to be one sentence in length only. Additionally, the utilization of multiple different sentences makes the claim indefinite wherein the bounds of what exactly is being claimed cannot be ascertained. Claim 15 includes limitations directed towards "15. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 where the net/banner bracing may be any set number of piece(s) so that the total length is that of the net/banner frame. In another embodiment, the net/banner bracing is a plurality of hinged pieces that are unfolded to create the overall length of the net bracing." The claims are supposed to be one sentence in length only. Additionally, the utilization of multiple different sentences makes the claim indefinite wherein the bounds of what exactly is being claimed cannot be ascertained. Claim 16 includes limitations directed towards "16. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 where the net/banner bracing may be any set number of piece(s) so that the total length is that of the net/banner frame. The use of hinges with the tubing to hold the net/banner when expanded. " The claims are supposed to be one sentence in length only. Additionally, the utilization of multiple different sentences makes the claim indefinite wherein the bounds of what exactly is being claimed cannot be ascertained. 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gronlund (US 4010951 A). Regarding claim 1, Gronlund teaches 1. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame to hold and secure a net. See Fig. 1. Regarding claim 2, Gronlund teaches 2. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 1, comprised of ferrous or non-ferrous metal, or fiber composites or plastics. See 4:53+. Regarding claim 3, Gronlund teaches 3. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, whose expandable and retractable systems are either comprised of hinges or telescopic tubing or a combination of both. See Fig. 1. Regarding claim 6, Gronlund teaches 6. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, whose expandable and retractable systems are comprised of ferrous or non-ferrous metal, or fiber composites or plastics. See 4:53+. Regarding claim 7, Gronlund teaches 7. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, that can expand to the width of approximately 4 ft. to 120 ft. See 6:10+. Regarding claim 8, Gronlund teaches 8. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, that retracts from its expanded width back to its original closed position. See Fig. 1 and 5. Regarding claim 9, Gronlund teaches 9. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, that can hold and secure a banner, a flag, or any other type of flexible material for any purpose. See Fig. 1; (38). Regarding claim 10, Gronlund teaches 10. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 and can be made to reach any reasonable height to accommodate nets, banners and other flexible materials at the height required for their expected use. See Fig. 1 which shows the net or banner at a specific height. Regarding claim 11, Gronlund teaches 11. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, that integrates wheels or castors for ease of relocation when necessary. See Fig. 1 and 2; (30). Regarding claim 13, Gronlund teaches 13. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 where the net/banner bracing may be any set number of piece(s) so that the total length is that of the net/banner frame. See Fig. 1 wherein there is no reason why multiple different pieces may be used for the banner. Regarding claim 14, Gronlund teaches 14. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 where the net/banner bracing may be any set number of piece(s) so that the total length is that of the net/banner frame. In one preferred embodiment, the net/banner bracing includes telescopic tubing that includes one or more interior tubes each sequentially smaller (or larger) in size so that the interior tubes can be nested within the largest tube and when fully extended create the overall length of the net/banner bracing. See Fig. 3; (48)(46) wherein the sections 46 and 48 are larger and smaller as claimed. The disclosure of Gronlund may also allow the banner as claimed to be held if desired. Regarding claim 15, Gronlund teaches 15. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 where the net/banner bracing may be any set number of piece(s) so that the total length is that of the net/banner frame. In another embodiment, the net/banner bracing is a plurality of hinged pieces that are unfolded to create the overall length of the net bracing. See Fig. 3; (48)(46) the hinged sections that connect to 28 when full expanded create the length as claimed. 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(a) 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 . The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham . Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “ Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronlund (US 4010951 A) in view of Ellis (US 5816956 A). Regarding claim 4, Ellis teaches 4. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, whose expandable and retractable systems are comprised of telescopic tubing that can be locked and unlocked when extended and retracted. See 4:5+ which speaks of telescopic tubing. This tubing can be easily incorporated into the extension of Gornlund such as those of items 46 and 48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Gronlund with Ellis to provide an alternate means to connect modules together that being telescopically (see 4:5+). Regarding claim 16, Gronlund teaches 16. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2 where the net/banner bracing may be any set number of piece(s) so that the total length is that of the net/banner frame. The use of hinges with the tubing to hold the net/banner when expanded. See Fig. 1. Ellis does teach what the primary reference is silent on including In still another embodiment, the net/banner bracing is a plurality and combination of telescopic tubing so that the combination of the extension of the telescopic tubing create the overall length of the net/banner bracing. See 4:5+ which speaks of telescopic tubing. This tubing can be easily incorporated into the extension of Gornlund such as those of items 46 and 48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Gronlund with Ellis to provide an alternate means to connect modules together that being telescopically (see 4:5+). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronlund (US 4010951 A) in view of Hajarian (US 20120100940 A1). Regarding claim 5, Gronlund teaches 5. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, whose expandable and retractable systems are comprised of hinges. See Fig. 1 wherein the device includes multiple hinges. Hajarian does teach what the primary reference is silent on including hinges that can be locked and unlocked. See [0017+]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Gronlund with Hajarian to allow the device to be secured in a folded and/or unfolded position ([0017+]). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronlund (US 4010951 A) in view of Johnson (US 8900074 B1). Regarding claim 12, Johnson teaches 12. A portable expandable/retractable net frame that integrates into one ensemble of parts an entire frame of claim 2, that integrates wheels that can be lockable to secure the frame from moving out of place of its intended use. See 4:14+. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Gronlund with Johnson t o provide means to hold the net holding device stationary. (See 4:14+). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nelson US 20170304701 A1 - which at [0010+] teaches a locking hinge. Gill US 5954600 A - which at 8:67+ shows a sliding deadbolt to lock the hinge. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0503 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eugene L Kim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4463 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711