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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 7 have been considered but are not persuasive as Cunningham (as set forth in the rejection below) clearly reads on the new limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,908,992 to Cunningham et al. (hereinafter “Cunningham”) in view of US Patent 11,433,286 to Beye et al. (“Beye”) and US Patent 4,437,661 to Chavez.
Regarding claims 1-12, Cunningham discloses a portable football goal post having right and left vertical members (17) with end caps (18), a horizontal cross bar (13) connected to the vertical members with elbows (16 – connected with fitting fasteners as they are a fluid tight friction fit, see col. 1, ll. 48-51) and to the neck (24) with a T-fitting (14) and then to the base (19,20,21); wherein the crossbars are configured to be set manually (the components of Cunningham are all manually assembled – see Figures).
Cunningham discloses a two-neck post construction and split rail base, but fails to disclose a single base with a cross-construction.
However, as taught by Beye, this construction for a portable goal is well-known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to substitute the single post and cross base of Beye for the split rail base of Cunningham since it would have been a simple substitution of one design (single post, cross base) for another (split rail, two post) that would have provided predictable results (properly supporting the goal of the portable device).
Cunningham, as modified by Beye, still fails to disclose a gooseneck post.
However, Chavez teaches a portable football goal having a gooseneck post (14/16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the goal of Cunningham and Beye with a gooseneck post, as taught by Chavez, in order to carry the uprights at a point horizontally offset from the vertical axis of the post as well as to simulate the appearance of a traditional football goal post (see Chavez, col. 3, ll. 31-38 and common knowledge).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Nicholas J Weiss whose telephone number is (571)270-1775. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
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.
Nicholas J. Weiss
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711