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 .
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 23-24 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 23 recites the limitation “the scoops” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 23 should be dependent on claim 22.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the scoops” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that claim 24 should be dependent on claim 23.
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 1-3, 14, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultze (4162072) in view of Achershaug (1170948) and Cox (6569068).
Regarding claim 1, Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches a catch and throw folding racket assembly, comprising: a first frame member (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6); a second frame member (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6); one or more connectors (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 5) connecting the first and second frame members; and a net (Fig. 1-2, part No. 3) connected with and between the first and second frame members (Col. 2, Lines 43-57).
Schultze does not teach the first frame member having a first rotatable handle attached thereto, the second frame member having a second rotatable handle attached thereto.
Achershaug (Figures 1-3) teaches the first frame member (11) having a first handle (18) attached thereto, the second frame member (11) having a second handle (18) attached thereto (Page 1, Lines 88-102).
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches providing a frame member of an amusement device rotating handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Schultze with the first frame member having a first handle attached thereto as taught by Achershaug as a means of providing a frame of a ball throwing apparatus with handles to aid in throwing a ball using the apparatus (Achershaug: Page 1, Lines 88-102), and to provide Schultze with the first frame member having a first rotatable handle attached thereto as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the first and second frame members (6) are U-shaped frame members terminating in ends, such that when the ends face each other, the first and second frame members form a catch area therebetween, with the net (3) connected with and between the first and second frame members to fill the catch area (See fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches first and second frame members (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6).
The modified Schultze does not teach each of the first and second frame members having a middle portion, with the first and second handles being rotatably attached to the first and second frame members such that the first and second handles freely rotate 360 degrees around the middle portion.
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches providing a frame member with a middle portion (Fig. 2, Part No. 20) (Col. 2, Lines 11-15), with the handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) being rotatably attached to the frame member such that the handle freely rotate 360 degrees around the middle portion (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the handle freely rotate 360 degrees around the middle portion as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame member of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches each of the first and second frame members (6) having a middle portion.
The modified Schultze does not teach the first and second handles being rotatably attached to the first and second frame members such that the first and second handles freely rotate 360 degrees around the middle portion.
Achershaug (Figures 1-3) teaches the first and second handles (18) being attached to the first and second frame members (11) (Page 1, Lines 88-102).
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches providing a handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) being rotatably attached to the frame member such that the handle freely rotate 360 degrees around the middle portion (20) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the first and second handles being attached to the first and second frame members as taught by Achershaug as a means of providing a frame of a ball throwing apparatus with handles to aid in throwing a ball using the apparatus (Achershaug: Page 1, Lines 88-102), and to provide Schultze with the handle freely rotate 360 degrees around the middle portion as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame member of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches first and second frame members (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6).
The modified Schultze does not teach a racket assembly axis spans between the two handles, and wherein the handles are U-shaped handles having a handle axis that is orthogonal to the racket assembly axis.
Achershaug (Figures 1-3) teaches a racket assembly axis spans between the two handles (Fig. 1, Part No. 18), and wherein the handles having a handle axis that is orthogonal to the racket assembly axis (See fig. 1) (Page 1, Lines 88-102).
It is noted that changing the shape of the handle of Achershaug would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). The prior art of Cox is also being used to teach a u-shaped handle.
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches a u-shaped handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the handles having a handle axis that is orthogonal to the racket assembly axis as taught by Achershaug as a means of providing a frame of a ball throwing apparatus with handles to aid in throwing a ball using the apparatus (Achershaug: Page 1, Lines 88-102), and to provide Schultze with a u-shaped handle as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Claims 4-6, 10-11, 15-16, 19, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultze in view of Achershaug and Cox, further in view of Davis (4938484).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) the one or more connectors (5) are formed of elastic springs (Col. 2, Lines 43-57) connecting the first and second frame members (6).
The modified Schultze does not teach the one or more connectors are formed of elastic or non-elastic cords.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the one or more connectors (Fig. 2, Part No. 18) are formed of elastic (Col. 4, Lines 32-39) or non-elastic cords.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the one or more connectors are formed of elastic cords as taught by Davis as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an elastic spring as taught by Schultze) for another (an elastic cord as taught by Davis) to obtain predictable results (elastic means positioned between two frame members for the purpose of limiting movement of the frame members when using the game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Davis: Col. 3, Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the one or more connectors (5) are formed of flexible elastic springs connecting the ends of the first and second frame members (6).
The modified Schultze does not teach the one or more connectors are formed of flexible elastic cords.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the one or more connectors (Fig. 2, Part No. 18) are formed of flexible elastic cords (Col. 4, Lines 32-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the one or more connectors are formed of flexible elastic cords as taught by Davis as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an elastic spring as taught by Schultze) for another (an elastic cord as taught by Davis) to obtain predictable results (elastic means positioned between two frame members for the purpose of limiting movement of the frame members when using the game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Davis: Col. 3, Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the one or more connectors (5) are formed of elastic springs having a maximum expansion distance, and wherein the net (3) is affixed between the first and second frame members (6) such that when the first and second frame members are pulled away from one another so that the net is taut, the elastic springs are expanded to a distance that is less than the maximum expansion distance.
The modified Schultze does not teach the one or more connectors are formed of elastic cords.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the one or more connectors (Fig. 2, Part No. 18) are formed of elastic cords (Col. 4, Lines 32-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the one or more connectors are formed of elastic cords as taught by Davis as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an elastic spring as taught by Schultze) for another (an elastic cord as taught by Davis) to obtain predictable results (elastic means positioned between two frame members for the purpose of limiting movement of the frame members when using the game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Davis: Col. 3, Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches first and second frame members (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6).
The modified Schultze does not teach each of the rotating handles has a scoop attached thereto, each scoop being formed with a cavity to receive material therein.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches each of the handles (Fig. 2, Part No. 12, 14) has a scoop (30, 32) attached thereto, each scoop being formed with a cavity (See fig. 2 and 8) (Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “scoop” is defined to mean “a hollow place; cavity”.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “to receive material therein” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Davis. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches providing a frame member of an amusement device rotating handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with each scoop being formed with a cavity as taught by Davis as a means of providing a handle of a game apparatus with spaced apart members that form concave cavities (Davis: Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8), and to provide the modified Schultze with a rotatable handle as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches first and second frame members (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6).
The modified Schultze does not teach the scoops are attached with the rotating handles such that when the racket assembly is a closed position, the cavities of each scoop are facing each other.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the scoops (30, 32) are attached with the handles such that when the racket assembly is a closed position, the cavities of each scoop are facing each other (Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8).
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches providing a frame member of an amusement device rotating handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the cavities of each scoop are facing each other as taught by Davis as a means of providing a handle of a game apparatus with spaced apart members that form concave cavities (Davis: Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8), and to provide the modified Schultze with a rotatable handle as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the one or more connectors (5) are formed of elastic springs connecting the first and second frame members (6).
The modified Schultze does not teach the one or more connectors are formed of elastic or non-elastic cords.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the one or more connectors (Fig. 2, Part No. 18) are formed of elastic (Col. 4, Lines 32-39) or non-elastic cords.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the one or more connectors are formed of elastic cords as taught by Davis as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an elastic spring as taught by Schultze) for another (an elastic cord as taught by Davis) to obtain predictable results (elastic means positioned between two frame members for the purpose of limiting movement of the frame members when using the game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Davis: Col. 3, Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the one or more connectors (5) are formed of flexible springs connecting the ends of the first and second frame members (6).
The modified Schultze does not teach the one or more connectors are formed of flexible cords connecting the ends of the first and second frame members.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the one or more connectors (Fig. 2, Part No. 18) are formed of flexible cords connecting the ends of the first and second frame members (Col. 4, Lines 32-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the one or more connectors are formed of flexible cords as taught by Davis as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an elastic spring as taught by Schultze) for another (an elastic cord as taught by Davis) to obtain predictable results (elastic means positioned between two frame members for the purpose of limiting movement of the frame members when using the game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Davis: Col. 3, Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the one or more connectors are formed of elastic springs having a maximum expansion distance, and wherein the net is affixed between the first and second frame members such that when the first and second frame members are pulled away from one another so that the net is taut, the elastic springs are expanded to a distance that is less than the maximum expansion distance.
The modified Schultze does not teach the one or more connectors are formed of elastic cords.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the one or more connectors (Fig. 2, Part No. 18) are formed of elastic cords (Col. 4, Lines 32-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with t the one or more connectors are formed of elastic cords as taught by Davis as a means of simple substitution of one known element (an elastic spring as taught by Schultze) for another (an elastic cord as taught by Davis) to obtain predictable results (elastic means positioned between two frame members for the purpose of limiting movement of the frame members when using the game) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Davis: Col. 3, Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches first and second frame members (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6).
The modified Schultze does not teach each of the rotating handles has a scoop attached thereto, each scoop being formed with a cavity to receive material therein.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches each of the handles (Fig. 2, Part No. 12, 14) has a scoop (30, 32) attached thereto, each scoop being formed with a cavity (See fig. 2 and 8) (Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “scoop” is defined to mean “a hollow place; cavity”.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “to receive material therein” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Davis. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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 (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches providing a frame member of an amusement device rotating handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with each scoop being formed with a cavity as taught by Davis as a means of providing a handle of a game apparatus with spaced apart members that form concave cavities (Davis: Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8), and to provide the modified Schultze with a rotatable handle as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches first and second frame members (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6).
The modified Schultze does not teach the scoops are attached with the rotating handles such that when the racket assembly is a closed position, the cavities of each scoop are facing each other.
Davis (Figures 1-8) teaches the scoops (30, 32) are attached with the handles such that when the racket assembly is a closed position, the cavities of each scoop are facing each other (Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8).
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches providing a frame member of an amusement device rotating handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the cavities of each scoop are facing each other as taught by Davis as a means of providing a handle of a game apparatus with spaced apart members that form concave cavities (Davis: Col. 5, Lines 10-12; See fig. 2, 8), and to provide the modified Schultze with a rotatable handle as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame of an amusement device with a rotating handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultze in view of Achershaug, Cox and Davis, further in view of Balaz (4456251).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the net (3) is formed of multiple parts (See fig. 1-2).
The modified Schultze does not teach the net is formed of dissimilar materials.
Balaz (Figure 1) teaches the net (8) is formed of dissimilar materials (Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the net is formed of dissimilar materials as taught by Balaz as a means of providing a net with elastic and inelastic strings (Balaz: Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the net (3) is formed of a first net part, a second net part, and a central net part positioned with and between the first and second net parts.
The modified Schultze does not teach the central net part is formed of an elastic mesh while the first and second net parts are formed of an inelastic material.
Balaz (Figure 1) teaches the central net part is formed of an elastic mesh while the first and second net parts are formed of an inelastic material (Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the central net part is formed of an elastic mesh as taught by Balaz as a means of providing a net with elastic and inelastic strings (Balaz: Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches first and second frame members (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 6).
The modified Schultze does not teach the net is formed of multiple parts having dissimilar materials.
Balaz (Figure 1) teaches the net (8) is formed of multiple parts having dissimilar materials (Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the net is formed of multiple parts having dissimilar materials as taught by Balaz as a means of providing a net with elastic and inelastic strings (Balaz: Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the net (3) is formed of a first net part, a second net part, and a central net part positioned with and between the first and second net parts.
The modified Schultze does not teach the central net part is formed of an elastic mesh while the first and second net parts are formed of an inelastic material.
Balaz (Figure 1) teaches the central net part is formed of an elastic mesh while the first and second net parts are formed of an inelastic material (Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with the central net part is formed of an elastic mesh while the first and second net parts are formed of an inelastic material as taught by Balaz as a means of providing a net with elastic and inelastic strings (Balaz: Col. 2, Lines 67-68; Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultze in view of Achershaug, Cox, Davis, and Balaz, further in view of Oister (20040063521).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the net (3) has a center.
The modified Schultze does not teach a shaped pocket formed within the center of the net.
Oister (Figures 1-4) teaches a shaped pocket (Fig. 2, Part No. 116) (Para. 0015) formed within the center of the net (Para. 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with a shaped pocket formed within the center of the net as taught by Oister as a means of providing game netting with a pocket/bag to catch game balls thrown at the net (Oister: Para. 0015).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Schultze (Figures 1-2) teaches the net (3) has a center.
The modified Schultze does not teach a shaped pocket formed within the center of the net.
Oister (Figures 1-4) teaches a shaped pocket (Fig. 2, Part No. 116) (Para. 0015) formed within the center of the net (Para. 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Schultze with a shaped pocket formed within the center of the net as taught by Oister as a means of providing game netting with a pocket/bag to catch game balls thrown at the net (Oister: Para. 0015).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achershaug in view of Cox.
Regarding claim 25, Achershaug (Figures 1-3) teaches a method for catching and throwing with a racket assembly, comprising acts of: holding a pair of handles (18) of the racket assembly such that a net is in an open position in a catch area as framed out by opposing frame members (See fig. 1); receiving a ball (17) within the catch area of the net while moving the handles toward one another and bringing the opposing frame members together into a closed position to catch the ball within the net (See fig. 1); and moving the handles away from one another while simultaneously pulling the opposing frame members apart into an open position (See fig. 2), thereby stretching the net and causing the ball to be ejected from the net and thrown from the racket assembly (Page 1, Lines 82-111).
Achershaug does not teach rotating handles.
Cox (Figures 1-2) teaches a providing a frame of an amusement device with a rotating handle (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 30) (Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Achershaug with a rotating handle as taught by Cox as a means of providing a frame of an amusement device with a handle to which 360 degree rotation may be applied through manipulation of the handles (Cox: Col. 2, Lines 16-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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. The prior art of record (Schultze (4162072), Achershaug (1170948), Cox (6569068), Davis (4938484), Balaz (4456251), Oister (20040063521)) does not teach the recitation in claims 12 of “when the racket assembly is in a closed position, the scoops are placed together to collectively form a spherical shell”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (where it is assumed that claim 24 should be dependent on claims 23, and claim 23 is dependent on claim 22, so that the intervening claims are claims 22-23). The prior art of record (Schultze (4162072), Achershaug (1170948), Cox (6569068), Davis (4938484), Balaz (4456251), Oister (20040063521)) does not teach the recitation in claims 24 of “when the racket assembly is in a closed position, the scoops are placed together to collectively form a spherical shell”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711