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 § 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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Domjen (7,909,330).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, Domjen discloses [[a]] an athletic training system comprising:
a ball redirection portion (rebounding wall 150; figures 19-20) including a front vertical planar surface (158), a top horizontal planar surface (upper/top planar surface; figure 19), and at least one angled surface (156) connecting the front surface and the top surface; and
a rebounding panel portion (the back panel is identified by element 152 which is shown as being opposite 156 and 158 in figure 19) including a substantially planar structure offset rearward of and substantially parallel to the front vertical planar surface.
Claim 2, Domjen shows the angled surface (156) includes: an at least partially arcuate surface (column 5, lines 44-52 teaches “whilst the preferred embodiment has a generally planar portion and two angled portions, which are also planar, other shapes may be used. For example, the front surface may be a concave shape with a curved surface of a constant radius or of a variable radius”).
Claim 3, Domjen shows the at least one angled surface (156) includes: at least one planar surface (figure 19).
Claim 5, Domjen shows a first piece including the ball redirection portion (150); and
a second piece including the rebounding panel portion (figure 19 reproduced above), wherein the first piece and the second piece are operably couplable (figure 19).
Claim 10, Domjen shows the assembly includes a support stand (figure 19 shows the assembly includes support legs 154).
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.
Claims 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domjen (7,909,330).
Claim 4, Domjen shows the at least one planar surface (158) may be located in at least two different positions relative to the base unit to change how the ball rebounds from the device. includes: a plurality of planar surfaces. Additionally, Domjen teaches the face may include a curved section. Where the face includes at least two portions or an upper portion and a lower portion, said upper portion may be angled relative to the lower portion. Therefore, it is understood that the planar surface may be more than one section since Domjen teaches the face includes at least two portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that front face can be more than two portions.
Claim 6, Domjen shows in the embodiment of figure 24 that the first piece and the second piece can be configured to interlock using latches (73; column 5, lines 53-58).
Claim 7, Domjen as described in claim 6, teaches in one embodiment that the first and second pieces can be interlocked using latches. Domjen discloses the claimed device with the exception of using at least one bolt instead of latches. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of attachment/interlocking means such as bolts is old and well known and obvious to incorporate because it aids releasably attaching two components together.
Claim 8, Domjen as described in claim 6, teaches in one embodiment that the first and second pieces can be interlocked using latches. Domjen discloses the claimed device with the exception of using at least one bolt instead of latches. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of attachment/interlocking means such as hook-and-loop is old and well known and obvious to incorporate because it aids releasably attaching two components together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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/
12 February 2026