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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistency with respect to the use of the term “said” and term “the”. For example, “said backboard” (lines 5 and 7) and the “the backboard” (line 8); “said extension activation bar” (line 20) or “the extension activation bar”. Applicant need to be consistent with the use of such terms and appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White US 6,283,878 (“White”) in view of Rogitz US 5,800,295 (“Rogitz”) and Guyard US 8,840,087 (“Guyard”).
As per claim 1, White discloses an adjustable basketball goal system for bi-directional height adjustment of a basketball goal assembly above a playing surface (apparatus 100)(Figs. 3-5; 4:18-5:65) comprising in combination,
a rigid vertical post support member (support member 114)(Figs. 3-5; 4:18+), a first goal support structure including a backboard, a first pair of parallel support arms pivotally connected to said backboard and to the rigid post support member (upper arms 122 connected to backboard 112)(Fig. 3; 4:18-59), a second goal support structure including said backboard, a second pair of parallel support arms pivotally connected to the backboard and the rigid post support member and extending there beyond defining a parallelogrammical with said first pair of parallel support arms (lower arms 126 connected to backboard 112 and extending beyond support 114)(Figs. 3-5; 4:18-59) , an extension activation bar pivotally connected at one end to the second pair of parallel support arms free ends (connecting rod 140 connected with lower arms 126)(Figs. 3-5; 4:18-59), and extending through and engaged a height adjustment assembly secured to said rigid post support member (locking device 130 connected to support 114)(Figs. 3-5; 4:60-5:52), said height adjustment assembly comprises, an open-ended housing (bracket 132)(Figs. 3-5; 4:60+) wherein movement by the height adjustment assembly raises and lowers the extension activation bar selectively engaging said second goal support structure for movement of the parallelogrammical structure and the basketball goal assembly pivotally secured thereto (note Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 in conjunction to 5:49+ as the height adjustment of the basketball apparatus).
White is not specific regarding a rotary actuator height adjustment assembly secured to said rigid post support member, said rotary actuation height adjustment assembly comprises, an open-ended housing having a synthetic friction guide cap and an interior friction guide pad channel, and pinion shaft assembly rotatably positioned therein comprising a crank handle, automatic braking assembly, a first pinion gear on said pinion shaft in communication with a reduction main gear in said housing, a second gear reduction pinion gear extending from said reduction main gear for engagement with a gear rack insert on said extension activation bar positioned inwardly of its free end.
With respect to a synthetic friction guide cap and an interior friction guide pad channel, such means are well known as taught by Rogitz (such as sleeve 54 and end 56)(Fig. 2; 3:27-33).
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 White’s height adjustment’s open end housing with a synthetic friction guide cap and an interior friction guide pad channel as taught by Rogitz for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in combining prior art elements according to known methods for purposes of protection and covering of the elements within the open end housing.
With respect to the rotary actuator means, in the field of support device suitable for height adjustment, Guyard discloses an open-ended housing (Fig. 3), and pinion shaft assembly (Figs. 3 and 4; 3:44+) rotatably positioned therein (Fig. 3) comprising a crank handle (4), automatic braking assembly (of ratchet wheel 36, spring 34 and safety pawl)(Figs. 3 and 4; 2:58-67; 3:42-60), a first pinion gear on said pinion shaft (pinion gear 32 on shaft 30) in communication with a reduction main gear in said housing (as drive gear 42)(Fig. 3; 4:19-36), a second gear reduction pinion gear extending from said reduction main gear for engagement with a gear rack insert (gear 44 extending from gear 42 upon shaft 40 to engage rack 8/54)(Fig. 3; 4:19-50; note also 4:50+ and 5:57+ as manipulation of the handle crank allow the extension of module 12 from module 11 via the engagement of the gear-to-rack).
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 White’s height adjustment means as a rotary actuation height adjustment assembly comprises, a pinion shaft assembly rotatably positioned therein comprising a crank handle, automatic braking assembly, a first pinion gear on said pinion shaft in communication with a reduction main gear in said housing, a second gear reduction pinion gear extending from said reduction main gear for engagement with a gear rack insert on said extension activation bar positioned inwardly of its free end for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Guyard’s suggestions as such height adjustment mechanism with a high level of efficiency and particularly reliable operation (1:58-60). Also, such rotary adjustment means, 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 within White’s system, as taught by Guyard, for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing a known mechanical means that facilitate a movement of a support to adjust its height as desired.
As per claim 2, with respect to wherein said automatic braking assembly comprises, a braking disk, a ratchet assembly and socket, a bushing and adjustable compression spring cap locking assembly, see Guyard’s Figs. 3 and 4, 3:35-4:50 and 6:53-8:8, regarding spring 34; ratchet wheel 36, bearings 38, and rings 65.
As per claim 3, with respect to wherein said ratchet assembly comprises, a selective stop positioned to engage the ratchet socket, the examiner construed such limitations as are related to the stop, braking of the height adjustment means, and in that regard note Guyard’s Figs. 3 and 4, 3:35-4:50 and 6:53-8:8 as the structure of the height adjust mechanism configure to stop the modules in a respective position (see in particular 5:26-6:52).
Conclusion
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 1/20/2026
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711