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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2026, has been entered.
Specification
37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) states, in pertinent part:
The claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). The specification should be amended to provide antecedent basis for “a ground anchor having a tapered body and external threads,” as recited in claims 1 and 11, and “a flexible filament” as recited in claims 1 and 10. (For clarity of the record, the examiner notes that Fig. 1 provides sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for these limitations. The specification should be amended as noted above to ensure compliance with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) with respect to the terms and phrases used in the claims.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not pointed out where amended claims 1 and 10 are supported in the disclosure of the application as filed, nor does there appear to be a written description in the original application of the combination of features now claimed, as further explained below.
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, there does not appear to be written description support for the combination of “the body having a fixed pair of connectors at a fixed distance” and “a slidable coupler fixed to the lower extendable arm and a rotatable joint coupling the lower extendable arm to the upper extendable arm,” wherein “the slidable coupler is constrained to translate along the extension shaft between (i) a collapsed position, and (ii) a deployed position defined by contact between the slidable coupler and a cap positioned at an end of the extension shaft.”
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, there does not appear to be written description support for the combination of “a rising assembly having: a cylindrical member” and “a coupler,” “a cylindrical body … having a fixed pair of connectors at a fixed distance on the cylindrical body” and “a slidable coupler fixed to the lower extendable rib and a rotatable joint coupling the lower extendable rib to the upper extendable rib,” wherein “the movement of the cylindrical member toward the cap causes each lower extendable rib to pivot relative to the cylindrical member and causes each upper extendable rib to pivot relative to a respective lower cylindrical rib.”
Scope of the Original Disclosure
The original disclosure describes three distinct embodiments, none of which include all of the claimed features in the combination recited in claim 1 or claim 10.
The first embodiment is shown in Figs. 1-5, reproduced below. The apparatus of the first embodiment includes a body (92) with a fixed pair of connectors (94, 96, Fig. 2) at a fixed distance, with a lower arm/rib (100) coupled to the body (92) at the lowermost connector (96). See ¶¶ 23-26. However, in the Fig. 1-3 embodiment, the lower arm/rib (100) is not fixed to a slidable coupler that translates/moves toward and away from the cap to collapse and deploy the apparatus, as now described in claims 1 and 10. Rather, the lower arm/rib (100) is fixed to the body (92) at the connector (96), and the apparatus is collapsed by disconnecting the opposite end of the lower arm/rib (100) from the upper arm/rib (120), as shown in Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
762
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second embodiment, shown in Figs. 8-9 (reproduced below), is the only disclosed embodiment that includes a slideable coupler (172, 176) fixed to the lower arm/rib (190). However, the Fig. 8-9 embodiment does not describe a body with a fixed pair of fixed connectors at a fixed distance as now recited in claims 1 and 10. Fig. 8 has a “body 180” (¶ 35) and which includes “a plurality of connectors 182 positioned at a top portion of the cylindrical body for connecting a cap 200.” ¶ 35. (The body 180 is not shown in Fig. 9, which purports to show the same embodiment; see ¶¶ 13 and 41.) The original disclosure does not describe the connectors (182) of the body (180) in the Fig. 8-9 embodiment as being “a fixed pair of connectors at a fixed distance” as now recited in claims 1 and 10. Moreover, the disclosed connectors (182) are for the purpose of connecting the cap (200) to the body (180; ¶ 35), but claim 1 requires that the cap is “positioned at an end of the extension shaft” (line 36). In addition, the slidable coupler (172, 176) in Figs. 8-9 appears to be the same part described as a rising assembly having a cylindrical member and a coupler (¶¶ 33-34), but claim 10 now appears to recite a slidable coupler as an additional part distinct from the rising assembly, cylindrical member, and coupler. No such combination of parts is described in the original disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
780
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The third embodiment, shown in Figs. 10-11 (reproduced below), is similar to the first embodiment of Figs. 1-3. Like the first embodiment, the third embodiment is collapsed by disconnecting the end of the lower arm from the upper arm, as shown in Fig. 11, rather than by a slidable coupler and rotating joint. Comparing the third embodiment to claims 1 and 10, the third embodiment includes a fixed pair of connectors at a fixed distance as recited in claims 1 and 10, and a cap (200) positioned at an end of the extension shaft (160) as recited in claim 1, but lacks a body, a slidable coupler, and a rotating joint.
PNG
media_image3.png
772
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 10, as now amended, appear to describe various features of the three different embodiments in a way that was not described in the original disclosure and which would not appear to be compatible in light of the original disclosure. For example, coupling the lower extendable arm/rib to a body which has a pair of fixed connectors at a fixed distance, as in Figs. 1-3, appears to be incompatible with coupling the lower extendable arm to a slidable coupler and rotating joint as in Figs. 8-9, because these are features of two alternative mechanisms for deploying and collapsing the apparatus which are not described in combination in the original disclosure. Moreover, positioning the cap at the end of the extension shaft as in the third embodiment appears to be incompatible with the claimed topper assembly having a body connected to the extension shaft. Additionally, the original disclosure does not describe an embodiment as now recited in claim 10 which includes an additional “slidable coupler” in combination with the cylindrical member and coupler of a rising assembly.
Claims 2-9, 11-12, and 14-19 are rejected in view of their dependency from claims 1 and 10.
In order to advance prosecution, the examiner requests that Applicant point out in the next response where support for amended claims 1 and 10 is found in the application as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the body having a fixed pair of connectors at a fixed distance” in lines 14-15 and “a cap positioned at an end of the extension shaft” in the last two lines render the claim indefinite due to the apparent inconsistencies between claim 1 and the disclosure, as discussed above. See MPEP § 2173.03 (“A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain”). Due to the ambiguity of the claim itself and the apparent lack of correspondence between the specification and the claims (see MPEP § 2173.03), it is unclear what configuration of the body, connectors, cap, and extension shaft is being described in claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear whether “a cap” in line 35 refers to the same cap introduced in line 16. If the cap is at the end of the extension shaft, then it is unclear what component is being described as “a body” which is positioned below the cap.
Claims 2-9 and 18 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “the cylindrical body includes a pair of fixed connectors at a fixed distance on the cylindrical body” in lines 12-13 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what configuration the body, connectors, cap, and extension shaft is being claimed. In addition, it is unclear whether “a slidable coupler” introduced in line 21 refers to the cylindrical member and/or coupler of the rising assembly recited in lines 8-10. As discussed above, the configuration of parts described in claim 10, including a cylindrical body with a pair of fixed connectors in combination with a rising assembly having a cylindrical member and a coupler, a slidable coupler, and rotating joint, does not appear to be consistent with the application disclosure. Due to the apparent lack of correspondence between the specification and the claims (see MPEP § 2173.03), it is unclear what configuration of the body, connectors, couplers, cap, and extension shaft is being described in claim 10. In addition, the limitations “each lower extendable rib” in line 30, “each upper extendable rib” in line 31, and “a respective lower extendable rib” in lines 31-32 render the claim indefinite, because the words “each” and “respective” imply more than one lower rib and more than one upper rib, but claim 10 does not recite (and the specification does not disclose) more than one lower rib or more than one upper rib.
Claims 11-12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 10.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbert, Jr. et al. (US Patent No. 8,011,664, hereinafter Hilbert) in view of Parent (US Patent Pub. 2012/0104190, hereinafter Parent), Vanston (US Patent Pub. 2015/0115530, hereinafter Vanston), and Hunter (US Patent No. 4,809,988, hereinafter Hunter).
Regarding claim 1, Hilbert discloses a portable outdoor game assembly (ring toss game apparatus 10, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a base assembly (lower piece 18 with hooks 38 and base 22; col. 3:13-15, 3:39-56, 4:25-28) having:
a base shaft (lower piece 18);
a ground anchor having a tapered body (“base 22 … may include a spiked tip for insertion into sand or ground,” col. 3:53-56); and
a fasten mechanism having a hook (hook 38); and
an extension assembly (upper piece 17 with bushings 51; col. 3:15-19) having:
an extension shaft (upper piece 17); and
a stabilizing assembly (bushings 51) coupled to the extension shaft (17); and
a tower assembly (arm 25 with folding mechanism 40; col. 3:57-4:9, 4:51-58) having:
a topper assembly (25, 40) having:
an upper extendable arm (25) coupled to a cap (top cap 44), wherein the topper assembly permits tool-less, uniform pivoting movement of the upper extendable arm (25) that reproducibly establishes a hook-to-ring geometry during set-up (see Fig. 1; col. 4:25-27); and
a ring assembly (cord 30 and ring-like member 35; col. 4:10-23) having:
a flexible filament (cord 30, Figs. 1-2) coupled to the upper extendable arm (25); and
a ring (35) fastened to an end of the flexible filament (30).
Hilbert does not explicitly teach external threads on the ground anchor, a locking mechanism opposite the hook, and the combination of a body, a lower extendable arm, a slidable coupler, and rotating joint.
However, with respect to the external threads of the ground anchor, Parent teaches a ground anchor (bottom end 3 of support pole 1, Figs. 1-3) having a tapered body (tapering to a sharpened tip 9, ¶ 28) and external threads (engaging thread 20). Parent teaches that the external threads “may help to displace dirt as the pole 1 is inserted into the ground” and “may provide additional surface area which contacts the ground, which may increase the stability of the pole 1 while the bottom portion of the pole 1 is inserted in the ground.” ¶ 28. 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 invention of Hilbert by providing the ground anchor with external threads as taught by Parent, in order to facilitate insertion into the ground and to increase stability of the base shaft when inserted into the ground.
With respect to the locking mechanism, Vanston teaches a similar game assembly (Figs. 1-5) comprising a fasten mechanism (hook 7 with clamp 5, ¶ 19) comprising a hook (7) and a locking mechanism (clamp 5 with screw 14 and nut 15, Fig. 2) opposite the hook (7). Vanston teaches that this locking mechanism allows for vertical adjustment of the hook (see ¶ 22), which provides an advantage over the use of a fixed hook which “can lead to decreased performance because small adjustments in either the string length or hook position are required for game play … due to the fact that the degree of tolerance for success is small” (¶ 7). 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 fasten mechanism of Hilbert to include a locking mechanism as taught by Vanston, in order to allow vertical adjustment of the hook for improved playability.
With respect to the body, lower extendable arm, slidable coupler, and rotatable joint, the examiner notes that iHilbert teaches that different folding mechanisms may be used for collapsing the apparatus (“These figures demonstrate one possible implementation of a folding mechanism and should not be seen as limiting the overall concept of a ring toss game apparatus that may be folded and is easily portable and storable,” col. 5:10-13). Hunter teaches a similar folding mechanism for a portable outdoor game assembly (goal 10, Fig. 1) designed to have “an umbrella-type frame assembly” (col. 4:25-28) “for ease of set-up and transportation” (col. 4:7-9) comprising a topper assembly (top and bottom couplings 28, 30 with upper frame arms 34 and lower frame arms 36; col. 4:16-34) having a body (outer surface of bottom coupling 30) connected to an extension shaft (24) and having a fixed pair of connectors at a fixed distance (the pivot points at which the arms 36 connect to the body of coupling 30 being in a fixed position on the body, with a fixed distance between adjacent pivot points), a cap (28) positioned above the body (of coupling 30), an upper extendable arm (34) connected to the cap (28), a lower extendable arm (36) coupled to the body (of coupling 30), a slidable coupler (inner bore of bottom coupling 30) fixed to the lower extendable arm (36) and a rotatable joint (“rotatably attached,” col. 4:25-28) coupling the lower extendable arm (36) to the upper extendable arm (34). The slidable coupler and the rotatable joint together permit tool-less, uniform pivoting of the upper extendable arm (34) and the lower extendable arm (36) that reproducibly establishes a desired geometry of the assembly during set-up (e.g., with suspended member 18 “positioned at a desired distance R away from the central mounting shaft 24 and at a desired vertical distance D above the playing surface 12,” col. 4:30-34), the sliding coupler being constrained to translate along the extension shaft (24) between a collapsed position and a deployed position that is defined by contact between the slidable coupler and the cap (28) which is positioned at an end of the extension shaft (24), as these limitations are best understood by the examiner in view of the issues under 35 USC 112(b) discussed above. The examiner notes that the pivoting of the arms is facilitated by loosening thumb screws (32; col. 4:16-20), which are understood to be tool-less. 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 topper assembly of Hilbert to include a body, lower extendable arm, slidable coupler, and rotatable joint in the configuration taught by Hunter, since this involves only the simple substitution of one known folding mechanism for collapsing the arms of an outdoor game assembly for another known folding mechanism for collapsing the arms of an outdoor game assembly, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hilbert further discloses a tripod mount (“base 22 may include a tripod,” col. 3:51-52) fastened to the base shaft (18).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. Hilbert further discloses the upper extendable arm outstretches greater than a 90 degree position with respect to the extension shaft of the game assembly (“arms 25 could extend upward … about 5 to 20 degrees from perpendicular,” col. 3:57-64). Hunter further teaches the lower extendable arm (36, Fig. 1) outstretches greater than a 90 degree position with respect to the extension shaft of the game assembly (24; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Hilbert as modified in view of Vanston further teaches the fasten mechanism (clamp 5 of Vanston, Fig. 1; at 13 in Fig. 2) extends around the base shaft.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 4. Hilbert further discloses the extension shaft (17) has a smaller circumference than the base shaft (18; “Upper piece 17 has an inner diameter that is slightly smaller than the inner diameter of lower piece 18 so that upper piece 17 may slide within or telescope within lower piece 18,” col. 3:15-19).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 5. Hilbert further discloses the stabilizing assembly (bushings 51) includes a channel that runs the length of the stabilizing assembly (see Figs. 1-2, corresponding to the longitudinal channels of the upper and lower pieces 17, 18).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 6. Hilbert further discloses the cap (44) is a circular member (see Fig. 7) with a tapered end portion adjacent the body (at lower end of arm openings 61).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbert in view of Parent, Vanston, and Hunter, in further view of Lyon (US Patent No. 2,950,918, hereinafter Lyon).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 7. Hilbert does not explicitly disclose an eyelet. However, Lyon teaches a similar game assembly (Fig. 1), similarly comprising a cord (27) coupled to an upper arm (13) with a ring (10) fastened to an end of the cord (27) for swinging toward a hook (11), wherein the upper arm (13) includes an eyelet (eye 28; col. 2:65-70) for fixing the cord (27) to the upper arm (13). 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 upper extendable arm of Hilbert to include an eyelet as taught by Lyon, in order to facilitate attachment of the cord to the upper arm.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8. Hilbert further discloses the stabilizing assembly (51) permits the extension shaft (17) to be raised or lowered (col. 3:15-25).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbert in view of Parent, Vanston, and Hunter, in further view of Holgate (US Patent No. 6,776,417, hereinafter Holgate).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Hilbert as modified in view of Hunter, see above, teaches that the outdoor game assembly is transitionable between the collapsed position and the deployed position (Hilbert, Figs. 1-4; Hunter, col. 4:6-24). Hilbert as modified in view of Hunter does not teach the negative limitation “without loosening or tightening a fastener” because Hunter teaches a fastener that is loosened and tightened on the extension shaft to collapse and deploy the apparatus (col. 4:16-20). However, in the art of outdoor game assemblies with umbrella-type frames, Holgate teaches a mechanism (spring-loaded lever 80, Fig. 9) for collapsing and deploying the assembly without loosening or tightening a fastener on the extension shaft (“A spring loaded lever 80 is configured with the center post 12 to maintain the collar 70, and thus the canopy assembly 16, in the deployed position. By depressing the lever 80 and moving the collar 70 downwards, the canopy assembly 16 may be quickly collapsed for transport or storage,” col. 5:25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Hilbert by configuring the game assembly to be transitionable between the collapsed position and the deployed position without loosening or tightening a fastener on the extension shaft, as taught by Holgate (e.g., by employing a spring loaded lever as taught by Holgate instead of a thumb screw as taught by Hunter), in order to simplify collapse and deployment of the assembly.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbert in view of Lyon and Holgate.
Regarding claim 10, Hilbert discloses a portable outdoor game assembly (ring toss game apparatus 10, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a base assembly (lower piece 18 with base 22; col. 3:13-15, 3:39-56, 4:25-28) having:
a base shaft (lower piece 18);
a tripod mount positioned at one end of the base shaft (“base 22 may include a tripod,” col. 3:51-52); and
an extension assembly having an extension shaft (upper piece 17) with a smaller circumference than the base shaft (col. 3:15-19);
a hook assembly (38);
a tower assembly (arm 25 with folding mechanism 40; col. 3:57-4:9, 4:51-58) having:
a cylindrical body (i.e., an uppermost piece of stand 15 when formed “as multiple pieces,” col. 3:12-13, and when formed to be “tubular or tube-like in shape,” col. 3:26-30) including a pair of fixed connectors at a fixed distance on the cylindrical body (“button or pin” at lower end of upper piece being a first connector, col. 3:23-25; and fastener 47 at upper end of upper piece being a second connector, Fig. 2, col. 4:55-58);
a cap (44, 45) positioned above the cylindrical body;
an upper extendable rib (25) coupled to the cap (44, 45) that permits tool-less, uniform pivoting member that reproducibly establishes a hook-to-ring geometry during set-up (see Fig. 1; col. 4:25-27); and
a ring assembly (cord 30 and ring-like member 35; col. 4:10-23) having:
a flexible filament (cord 30, Figs. 1-2) coupled to the upper extendable rib (25); and
a ring (35) fastened to the flexible filament (30).
Hilbert does not teach a hook receiver extending through the extension shaft, a rising assembly, a lower extendable rib, a slidable coupler, and a rotatable joint.
However, with respect to the hook receiver, Lyon teaches a similar game assembly (Fig. 1) comprising an extension shaft (supporting portion 20) with a hook receiver (front-to-rear transverse bore 31, Fig. 6; col. 2:71-3:11) extending through the extension shaft, in order to facilitate attachment of a hook assembly (11). 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 invention of Hilbert by adding a hook receiver as taught by Lyon extending through the extension shaft, since this involves only the simple substitution of one known manner of attaching a hook to a shaft for another known manner of attaching a hook to a shaft for playing a ring-and-hook game, to yield predictable results.
With respect to the rising assembly, lower rib, slidable coupler, and rotatable joint, the examiner notes that iHilbert teaches that different folding mechanisms may be used for collapsing the apparatus (“These figures demonstrate one possible implementation of a folding mechanism and should not be seen as limiting the overall concept of a ring toss game apparatus that may be folded and is easily portable and storable,” col. 5:10-13). Holgate teaches a similar folding mechanism for collapsing the ribs of a portable outdoor game assembly, comprising a rising assembly (Fig. 9) having a cylindrical member (flange 76, col. 5:11-18) and a coupler (pivot point 72) positioned within the cylindrical member (76); an upper extendable rib (50) coupled to a cap (62); a lower extendable rib (support rib 68) coupled to the rising assembly (at pivot point 72) and the upper extendable rib (at pivot 74); a slidable coupler (collar 70) fixed to the lower extendable rib (via flange 76 and pivot point 72); and a rotatable joint (pivot 74) coupling the lower extendable rib (68) to the upper extendable rib (50), wherein the slidable coupler (70) and the rotatable joint (74) together permit tool-less, uniform pivoting movement that reproducibly establishes a desired geometry of the assembly during set-up (see Figs. 1-2), wherein movement of the cylindrical member (76) toward the cap (62) causes the lower extendable rib (68) to pivot relative to the cylindrical member (76) and causes the upper extendable rib (50) to pivot relative to the lower extendable rib (68; col. 5:20-24). Holgate teaches that this arrangement “is easily collapsible in order to facilitate transport and quick set-up.” Col. 4:9-12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Hilbert to include a rising assembly having a cylindrical member and a coupler, a lower extendable rib, a slidable coupler, and a rotatable joint in the configuration taught by Holgate, since this involves only the simple substitution of one known folding mechanism for collapsing the arms of an outdoor game assembly for another known folding mechanism for collapsing the arms of an outdoor game assembly, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Holgate further teaches the cylindrical member (76, Fig. 9) is operable between only a collapsed configuration (when lever 80 is depressed and member 76 is slid downwardly) and a deployed configuration (when collar 70 is supported on lever 80; col. 5:25-30).
Claims 11-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilbert in view of Lyon and Holgate, in further view of Parent.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Hilbert further discloses a ground anchor having a tapered body (“base 22 … may include a spiked tip for insertion into sand or ground,” col. 3:53-56) positioned at one end of the base shaft (“base 22 … may include a spiked tip for insertion into sand or ground,” col. 3:53-56). Hilbert does not explicitly teach external threads on the ground anchor. However, Parent teaches a ground anchor (bottom end 3 of support pole 1, Figs. 1-3) having a tapered body (tapering to a sharpened tip 9, ¶ 28) and external threads (engaging thread 20) to displace dirt and provide additional surface area for improved stability when inserted in the ground (see ¶ 28, cited above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Hilbert by providing the ground anchor with external threads as taught by Parent, in order to facilitate insertion into the ground and to increase stability of the base shaft when inserted into the ground.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11. Hilbert further discloses the base assembly comprises a stabilizer (bushings 51).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 12. Hilbert does not explicitly disclose an eyelet. However, Lyon further teaches the upper arm (13, Fig. 1) includes an eyelet (eye 28; col. 2:65-70) for fixing the cord (27) to the upper arm (13). 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 upper extendable arm of Hilbert to include an eyelet as taught by Lyon, in order to facilitate attachment of the cord to the upper arm.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 14. Holgate further teaches the cylindrical member (76) of the rising assembly glides in a first position toward the cap (62) outstretching the lower extendable rib (68) and the upper extendable rib (50; col. 5:20-24).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 15. Holgate further teaches the cylindrical member (76) of the rising assembly glides in a second position away from the cap (62) lowering the upper and lower extendable ribs (50, 68; col. 5:28-30).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Hilbert teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Holgate teaches that the lower extendable rib (68) permits an outstretching of the upper extendable rib (50; col. 5:20-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1
In response to Applicant’s argument that the folding mechanism of Hilbert is directed to stowing the arms rather than to maintaining a repeatable geometric relationship between the hook and ring, the examiner maintains that Hilbert is clearly concerned both with stowing the arms, as shown in Fig. 3, and with maintaining the arms in the correct position for game play when deployed, as clearly shown in Fig. 1. For example, Hilbert states that the hooks (38) are “attached to the support stand 15 at a distance corresponding to the length of cord 30, such that each ring-like member 35 can encircle a hook 38 while keeping cord 30 taut” (col. 4:25-27) when the upper arms are completely extended and fixed in the playing position (Fig. 1), as is well understood in the art of such hook-and-ring games. The examiner recognizes that Hilbert and Vanston do not disclose a slidable coupler and rotatable joint as claimed but maintains that this feature as recited in claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Hunter.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hunter does not teach a slidable coupler and rotatable joint, the examiner maintains that Hunter clearly discloses these features, as discussed in detail above in response to Applicant’s amendment. In response to Applicant’s argument that Hunter does not address establishing a repeatable spatial relationship between a hook and ring, the examiner maintains that the repeatable spatial relationship of the hook and ring is clearly taught by Hilbert and is well understood in the art of hook-and-ring games. The slidable coupler of Hunter is clearly capable of use to establish a repeatable configuration of the upper arms (e.g., by sliding the coupler all the way to the top, as shown in Fig. 1 of Hunter, to completely extend the upper arms). In view of the foregoing, the examiner maintains that the “repeatable geometry” limitations would have been obvious over Hilbert in view of Hunter because Hilbert teaches that the repeatable geometry of the hook and ring is established by completely extending the upper arms, and because the slideable coupler, lower arm, and rotatable joint taught by Hunter are clearly capable of use for completely extending the upper arms.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Hunter’s slideable coupler is not constrained between “only” a collapsed position and a deployed position but can instead be freely positioned at other locations along the extension shaft, the examiner notes that claim 1 does not require that the coupler can be constrained only at a collapsed position and a deployed position on the extension shaft, or that axial movement is limited to two defined positions. Stated another way, claim 1 does not exclude multiple selectable positions along the shaft between the collapsed position and the deployed position. Hunter’s slidable coupler can translate no further than the completely collapsed position (due to the presence of the base) and no further than the completely extended position (due to the presence of the cap 28) and therefore reads on the limitation “constrained to translate along the extension shaft between (i) a collapsed position, and (ii) a deployed position defined by contact between the slidable coupler and a cap positioned at an end of the extension shaft.”
Claim 10
In response to Applicant’s argument that the folding mechanism of Hilbert is directed to compact storage rather than to maintaining a repeatable geometric relationship between the hook and ring, the examiner maintains that Hilbert is clearly concerned both with compact storage, as shown in Fig. 3, and with maintaining the arms in the correct position for game play when deployed, as clearly shown in Fig. 1. For example, Hilbert states that the hooks (38) are “attached to the support stand 15 at a distance corresponding to the length of cord 30, such that each ring-like member 35 can encircle a hook 38 while keeping cord 30 taut” (col. 4:25-27) when the upper arms are completely extended and fixed in the playing position (Fig. 1), as is well understood in the art of such hook-and-ring games. The examiner recognizes that Hilbert and Lyon do not disclose a slidable coupler and rotatable joint as claimed but maintains that this feature as recited in claim 10 would have been obvious in view of Holgate. The examiner notes that claim 10 as currently amended now recites a slidable coupler in addition to a rising assembly having a cylindrical member and a coupler. Holgate teaches these limitations as they are best understood by the examiner in view of the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth above in response to Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993