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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0032] One example of base portion 37, as shown in FIG. 6B, is one that is compressible to fit into and lock within hole 34. In this configuration, no additional hardware is necessary for securing the target 30 to the rim 20. This portion of the specification discloses a FIG.6B, however the drawings fail to show a FIG.6B; this figure is missing from the drawings. FIG. 7A depicts a base portion 37, so the specification should disclose that or an additional FIG.6B should be included. 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.
1. Claim 1-5, 7, 8-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (US 7427244 B1) in view of Brooks (US 20180353824 A1). Regarding claim 1, Patel discloses a system for assisting a child in learning and improving upon aim in shooting a basketball into a basketball rim secured to a post or mount (see Abstract), the system comprising:
a retainer ring (30) operatively connected to the basketball rim (see Figs. 3-7), the retainer ring comprising a partial circle ring (see Fig. 1) that secures to an inside edge of the basketball rim (see Fig. 5 that details the cross-section of the ring and would inherently secure to the inside edge of the rim); and
a plurality of removable targets (40) secured to the retainer ring (Figures and col. 4, ll. 39-50 – frictionally fit components can be removed…further, Patel states that the targets can be attached to base by “any suitable means” and discusses the advantage of replacing damaged elements – e.g. “removable”), each removable target of said plurality of removable targets comprising a head portion (distal end of target 40) connected to a stem (proximal end of target 40, included wider base 44B), the stem having a base (see Fig. 5) which passes through an aperture in the retainer ring for securing the stem to the retainer ring (col. 4, ll. 39-50);
wherein the head portion of each removable target of said plurality of removable targets comprises a different character (330), each of said characters corresponding with a specific location on the retainer ring, for directing the child to aim for the specific location when each of said characters is called out by a coach providing instruction to the child (col. 4, line 61 – col. 5, line 7 – the different colored target ends provide different zones to aim at. The term “character” is extremely broad and does not limit over different color tips; there could be a yellow, blue, etc. colored tip.
wherein the head portion of each removable target of said plurality of removable targets is positioned above the basketball rim at a distance above the basketball rim (distal ends of targets, 40, are positioned above the rim – see Figures of Patel) where positioning of the basketball with respect to the basketball rim is optimized to ensure that the basketball passes over the plurality of removable targets and through the basketball rim (see Abstract and Figures of Patel).
Patel fails to disclose the retainer ring being a full circle ring securing to the entire inside edge of the rim.
However, Brooks teaches a basketball training aid having a full circle retainer ring (17) that secures to the entire inside edge of the rim (see Fig 11 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
518
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0043] An upper surface 17B of the mounting ring provides a stop when the mounting ring 17 is placed on the upper surface of the rim 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the retaining ring of Patel with the full circle retaining ring of Brooks since this would have been a simple substitution of one known element (full circle retaining ring) for another (partial circle retaining ring) that would have provided predictable results (secure attachment to the basketball rim).
It is noted:
The preamble -- a system for assisting a child in learning and improving upon aim in
shooting a basketball into a basketball rim secured to a post or mount -- does not limit the structure
of the claimed device because the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained
description of the structure and does not depend on the preamble for completeness.
Claim 2, the modified Patel teaches wherein the retainer ring fits within the basketball ring: Patel shows the retainer ring (30) fits within the basketball ring (figures 3 and 4).
Claim 3, the modified Patel teaches wherein the retainer ring fits on top of the basketball ring, the retainer ring having clips for securing the retainer ring to the basketball rim: Patel shows the retainer ring (30) fits on top of the basketball ring, the retainer ring having clips (C-section shown in figure 10; column 3, lines 62-67 and column 4, lines 1-6) for securing the retainer ring to the basketball rim.
Claim 4, the modified Patel teaches wherein the retainer ring has one or more holes sized for receiving the target stem: Patel shows the retainer ring (30) has one or more holes (plurality of openings 70) sized for receiving the target stem (column 4, lines 39-50).
Claim 5, the modified Patel wherein the stem is configured to bend upon impact by the basketball in the instance of poor aim of the shot: Patel shows the target stem is configured to bend upon impact by the basketball in the instance of poor aim of the shot (column 4, lines 23-33).
Claim 7, the modified Patel teaches wherein the stem has a base portion that is rectangular-shaped and configured to press-fit within the retainer ring: Patel shows the stem is rectangular-shaped and configured to press-fit within the hole of the retainer ring (the cross-section is rectangular-shaped and are frictionally fit within the openings; column 4, lines 39-41).
Claim 8, the modified Patel teaches wherein the stem has a base portion that is cylindrical-shaped and configured for insertion within the retainer ring: Patel teaches the stem is cylindrical-shaped and configured for insertion within the hole of the retainer ring (the figures show the projections are cylindrical-shaped and are frictionally fit within the openings; column 4, lines 39-41).
Claim 9, the modified Patel teaches wherein the head portion has printed indicia selected from the group consisting of letters, numbers, and cartoon characters: Patel shows the target head (tips 42A-60A) can be any suitable shape but preferably are distinctly colored to be visible (column 4, lines 34-38). The printed indicia is in the form of color or as noted can be of any suitable shape i.e. each maybe shaped as a number in order to identify the targets by number rather than color. It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of choice, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed printed indicia in the shape of letters, numbers and cartoon characters was significant. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 10, the modified Patel teaches wherein the head portion has internal circuitry to power one or more light sources protruding from a portion of said one or more targets, said light source configured to illuminate upon detection of the basketball: Patel shows the target (40) has internal circuitry to power one or more light sources protruding from a portion of the target, each said light source configured to illuminate upon detection of the basketball (column 5, lines 18-40).
Claim 13, Patel as modified in view of Brooks (see claim 1 for details) shows during normal use and operation of the device, the method steps set forth by applicant in the claim is naturally provided. The method comprising the steps of: securing a full circle retainer ring to an inside edge of the basketball rim; securing a plurality of removable targets to the retainer ring, each target having a stem with a base passing through an aperture in the retainer ring for securing the stem to the retainer ring; securing a head portion (42A through 60A) to each stem (projections 42, 22, 26, 28, 50, 52 etc.) of said plurality of removable targets, each said head portion comprising a different character, each of said characters corresponding with a specific location on the retainer ring (It is noted that “a character” is encompassed within the meaning of “a shape”. It is the examiner’s position that the head or tip portion of petal being capable of having any suitable shape meets the recited limitation), each of said characters corresponding with a specific location on the retainer ring (Petal does expressly disclose the shapes/characters corresponding to specific locations on the ring, but teaches that each are distinctly colored which implies that each location is distinguished by shape and color); positioning the head portion of each target above the basketball rim at a distance above the basketball rim (Note: it appears that it is aiming of the basketball with respect to the rim and not positioning of the basketball since the basketball is not being positioned on or in the rim); where positioning of the basketball with respect to the basketball rim is optimized to ensure that the basketball passes over the plurality of targets and through the basketball rim (with respect to the basketball rim is optimized to ensure that the basketball passes through the basketball rim (Abstract of the Disclosure; column 2, lines 38-44; column 4, lines 13-33); and aiming a basketball at a location immediately adjacent to and above the head portion of a specific target as identified by said character corresponding with a specific location on the retainer and shooting said basketball at said aimed location (note the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Patel teaches wherein the head portion has internal circuitry to power one or more light sources protruding from a portion of said one or more targets, said light source configured to illuminate upon detection of the basketball: These are the same structural limitations as those in claim 10 and are appreciated in the same way: target (40) has internal circuitry to power one or more light sources protruding from a portion of the target, each said light source configured to illuminate upon detection of the basketball (Patel, column 5, lines 18-40).
Patel discloses the claimed device with the exception of the stem being rigid. However, as disclosed by Johnson (column 4, lines 4-23) it is known in the art to form the stem of rigid or inflexible material and include a weight in order to return the stem to its initial position after being impact by a ball. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a stem system for Patel’s system given that Johnson teaches that the rigid stem can have return to the vertical position after being impacted by a ball.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Brooks, as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Barry (6,190,270).
Claim 11, Patel discloses the claimed device with the exception of the one or more targets having and a sound source configured to play a sound effect or song upon detection of a basketball. However, as disclosed by Barry (column 2, lines 56-59) it is known in the art to include light alone, or in combination with a pleasing sound generated from an audio means as a positive feedback.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such an alert system for Patel’s system given that Barry teaches such is an appropriate manner for providing positive feedback to the end user.
Claim 15, Patel discloses the claimed device and method of use with the exception of the one or more targets having and a sound source configured to play a sound effect or song upon detection of a basketball. However, as disclosed by Barry (column 2, lines 56-59) it is known in the art to include light alone or in combination with a pleasing sound generated from an audio means as a positive feedback.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such an alert system for Patel’s system given that Barry teaches such is an appropriate manner for providing positive feedback to the end user.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claims 1 and 13 respectively, above, and further in view of Gordon et al (US20150265897 A1). Claim 12, Patel discloses the claimed device with the exception of the one or more targets having internal circuitry operatively connected to a smart phone device for communicating data to the smart phone relating to a user’s shooting performance. However, as disclosed by Gordon (paragraphs 0065 and 0078; figure 12) it is known in the art to utilize a remote mobile device such as a smart phone in communication to a target (arm 41) extending above the rim of a basketball.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a mobile device for Patel’s assembly given that Gordon teaches such is an appropriate manner for easily allowing players to monitor the score and shots made or missed.
Claim 16, Patel discloses the claimed device and method of use with the exception of the one or more targets having internal circuitry operatively connected to a smart phone device for communicating data to the smart phone relating to a user’s shooting performance. However, as disclosed by Gordon (paragraphs 0065 and 0078; figure 12) it is known in the art to utilize a remote mobile device such as a smart phone in communication to a target (arm 41) extending above the rim of a basketball. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a mobile device for Patel’s assembly given that Gordon teaches such is an appropriate manner for easily allowing players to monitor the score and shots made or missed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to RIA SHARMA whose telephone number (571) 345-5811. The
examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 5pm.
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, vis it:
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.
/R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711