DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 June 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3-6, 8-10, 13, 15, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver (8,578,678) in view of Batter’s Box Template hereinafter (BBT).
Claim 1, Oliver discloses a form for constructing a foundation on a baseball field, the form comprising:
a hollow frame (full side members 39 which is formed of two side members 21 and outer members 23) comprising a peripheral side defining an open upper surface and an open lower surface (figures 1-8 show an outer hollow frame; more specifically the peripheral sides define and open upper and lower surface), the peripheral side defining a planar T-shaped configuration or the peripheral side defining a planar rectangular configuration, the hollow frame sized to extend under the batter's and catcher's boxes, the hollow frame capable of being sized to extend under the batter's and catcher's boxes (intended use limitation; and
an inner frame (inner frame 25) spaced within the peripheral side and supportable by the hollow frame, the inner frame having a cavity capable of receiving a home plate (as shown for example in figure 4, the inner frame 25 is capable of receiving a home plate).
Oliver discloses the claimed device with the exception of having the peripheral side is sized to correspond with the peripheral edge of line markers for the batter's and catcher's boxes,. wherein the cavity is for receiving a home plate. The use of a form for constructing a foundation is well known in various arts including the sports art. One such example is the patent to Oliver which uses a form for constructing a foundation for a thrower’s circle. Oliver provides the steps and structure for constructing the foundation. The process and concept taught by Oliver is the same as the claimed concept and process recited in the claim. What is not taught by Oliver is using the form to construct a foundation for a batter’s and catcher’s box. This is however taught by “BBT” a form is provided where the peripheral side is sized to correspond with the peripheral edge of the line markers for the batter’s and catcher’s boxes. A cavity is provided for receiving a home plate. As shown in the figures the peripheral edges provide a guidance for laying out the foundation and markings for the batter’s and catcher’s box and for a central segment for supporting a home plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further utilized the teachings for Oliver to form a foundation for a batter’s and catcher’s box as shown and disclosed by “BBT” since the use of forms for constructing a foundation for a structure is well known and well established in the industry and obvious to use since it aids in providing a stable support which requires less maintenance and repair. Note: with regards to the cavity having an irregular pentagon shape defining the cavity for receiving the home plate, the shape of the cavity would naturally conform to the shape of the home plate. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to conform the cavity to the shape of the home plate.
It is noted:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). (see MPEP 2114 [R-1] Apparatus and Article Claims - Functional Language).
Claim 2, Oliver does not expressly disclose the use of artificial turf extending over upper ends of the home plate frame and connected to an inside vertical side of the home plate frame.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of ASTROTURF or artificial turn is old and well known and obvious to incorporate because it provides a good substitute for natural turf.
Claim 3, Oliver shows the hollow frame comprises a plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections (as shown in figure 4, there are two prefabricated hollow frame sections).
Claim 4, Oliver shows the plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections comprises a plurality of side members and a plurality of cross-members (cross members 53), and wherein the inner frame (25) is supportable on at least one of the cross-members.
Claim 5, Oliver shows at least one drain tube (drain tubes 59; figures 4 and 6) having a passageway opening into the cavity of the home plate frame, and a lower end disposed adjacent to a bottom of the hollow frame.
Claim 6, as noted in claim 2 Oliver in view of “BBT” show the home plate frame comprises a bottom of having an irregular pentagon shape; and a surrounding sidewall comprising a first side, a second side, a third side, a fourth side, and a fifth side.
Claim 8, Oliver shows the hollow frame comprises a constant peripheral height (as shown in figures 2-4, 6 the frame includes a constant peripheral height).
Claim 9, as noted in claim 2 Oliver in view of “BBT” show the hollow frame includes a prefabricated central frame section, a prefabricated right-handed batter's box section, a prefabricated left-handed batter's box section, and a prefabricated catcher's box section;
the home plate frame fixedly attached to the prefabricated central frame section (see “BBT” figures);
the plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections comprising prefabricated features for aligning the plurality of prefabricated frame sections for assembly; and
wherein the assembled hollow frame comprises a planar T-shaped configuration (see “BBT” figures).
Claim 10, as noted in claim 2 Oliver in view of “BBT” show a prefabricated first frame section, a prefabricated second frame section, and a prefabricated third frame section (see “BBT” figures);
the home plate frame fixedly attached to the prefabricated first frame section (see “BBT” figures);
the plurality of prefabricated hollow frame section comprising prefabricated features for aligning the plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections for assembly; and
wherein the assembled hollow frame comprises a planar rectangular- shaped configuration (see “BBT” figures).
Claim 13, Oliver shows the hollow frame comprises a plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections comprising first alignable apertures for receiving fasteners (as shown in figure 4, bolts 31 and nuts 33 are received in openings or holes) therethrough for assembling the plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections;
the plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections comprises notches (notches 67) for locating and supporting rebar (column 4, lines 2-5).
With regards to the inclusion of “stakes”, as best the claim is understood Oliver further shows the plurality of prefabricated hollow (figure 4) frame sections comprises holes capable of locating stakes for anchoring the assembled plurality of prefabricated hollow frame sections to the support structure.
Claim 15, Oliver shows concrete disposed in the hollow frame (column 2, lines 1-2 and column 3, lines 1-10). Oliver discloses the claimed device with the exception of expressly disclosing the material disposed over the cured concrete of the inner and outer frames.
It is noted that the material used to dispose over the cured concrete of the inner and outer frames has been given no criticality by the applicant. Lacking any criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used a material such as synthetic grass for placement over the cured concrete, since the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice, therefore held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Any material which allows one to cover the cured concrete of the inner and outer material would have further been considered suitable to artisans of ordinary skill, since no criticality in the used material is given --the selection of a known material is a matter of designer prerogative.
Claim 28, note the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Claim 29, Oliver discloses the claimed device with the exception of the manner in which the home plate is supported within the home plate opening i.e. friction fit to the turf. The Examiner takes Official Notice that friction fit is one known manner in which to support a home plate within home plate opening, such a securement means is old and well known and obvious to utilize for the modified Oliver assembly.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall (7,648,432).
Claims 7, Oliver in view of “BBT” show the fabrication and markings of the claimed device. Oliver in view of “BBT” do not expressly disclose the particulars for the home plate frame. However, as disclosed by Hall (a plurality of members for adjustment and outwardly extending lip; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized such a home plate frame for the modified Oliver device since the selection of a known home plate on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice, therefore held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thur, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
25 July 2026
Prosecution Insights