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 informality:
In paragraph 61 (last sentence), the “sliding sleeve” is first referred to as element #116 and later as element #115. Based on Figure 10, the correct element # should be 116. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1,2,4,6,10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN 201076723).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu teaches a net apparatus (Figure 1), comprising: first and second uprights (2); a scissor mechanism (4) connected at least indirectly to the first and second uprights (Figures 1 and 2); a net (1) removably connectible to the first and second uprights (straps shown in Figure 1); and legs (3) connected at least indirectly to the uprights (2).
Regarding Claim 2, Xu teaches wherein the net apparatus (Figure 1) is configured to move between a folded state (Abstract, Sentence 4) and a deployed state (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Xu teaches wherein two of the legs (3) are indirectly connected (Figures 1 and 2) to a sliding sleeve (slider 6) that is configured to move up and down along one of the uprights (2) (Drawing Description, paragraph 2, first sentence).
Regarding Claim 6, Xu teaches wherein the legs (3) are movable (Claim 2, “spring is set on the fixed screw with hinging function in the support leg”) between a horizontal position that is parallel to a playing surface (Figure 1), and a vertical position that is parallel to the uprights (Drawing Description, second paragraph, last sentence, “rotating upwards when folding along the hinge”).
Regarding Claim 10, Xu teaches wherein the scissor mechanism is rotatably connected to the uprights (Abstract, Sentence 3, “hinged”).
Regarding Claim 11, Xu teaches wherein when the net apparatus is in the deployed state, a lowermost portion of the scissor mechanism is positioned above the ground (Figures 1 and 2).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu.
Regarding Claim 3, Xu teaches the net apparatus as recited in Claim 1, wherein the scissor mechanism comprises a set of single elements (4), not double elements, as claimed by the applicant of the instantly claimed invention. However, simply adding another set of elements is not an inventive concept; it is a matter of duplication of parts. See in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with a scissor mechanism comprising a set of double elements as a matter of duplication of parts to provide additional stiffness in the unfolded state, which is not an unexpected result.
Claims 5,7,8,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Lee (WO 2007049906).
Regarding Claim 5, Xu teaches the net apparatus as recited in Claim 1. Xu does not teach wherein the legs (3) are configured to move automatically in response to a reconfiguration of the scissor mechanism (4); Xu teaches the legs to move using a separate hinge mechanism based on a spring enclosed within element 5. However, Lee teaches wherein the legs (17) are configured to move automatically in response to a reconfiguration of the scissor mechanism (Claim 7, Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with legs configured to automatically move in response to a reconfiguration of the scissor mechanism, as taught by Lee, to conveniently stabilize the net apparatus with the legs in the unfolded state while in use, and to conveniently fold them when not in use.
Regarding Claim 7, Xu teaches the net apparatus as recited in Claim 1. Xu does not teach it further comprising a strut that connects one of the legs to a sliding sleeve disposed on one of the uprights. However, Lee teaches a net apparatus further comprising a strut (21) that connects one of the legs (17) to a sliding sleeve (3) disposed on one of the uprights (2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with a strut that connects one of the legs to a sliding sleeve disposed on one of the uprights, as taught by Lee, to provide more stability and to position the legs corresponding to the movement and location of the sliding sleeve.
Regarding Claim 8, Xu teaches the net apparatus as recited in claim 1, wherein one of the legs (3) is rotatably connected to a fixed sleeve (5) disposed on one of the uprights (2) (Claim 2, “spring is set on the fixed screw with hinging function in the support leg). Xu does not teach a strut that is rotatably connected at one end to the one leg and at another end to a sliding sleeve disposed on the one upright. However, Lee teaches a strut (21) that is rotatably connected at one end to the one leg (17) and at another end to a sliding sleeve (3) disposed on the one upright (2) (pg. 10, paragraph 3, lines 3-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with a strut that is rotatably connected at one end to the one leg and at another end to a sliding sleeve disposed on the one upright, as taught by Lee, to rotatably fold or unfold the legs and struts simultaneously in response to the sliding sleeve moving up or down, respectively.
Regarding Claim 13, Xu teaches the net apparatus recited in claim 1, wherein the scissor mechanism (4) is connected to a sliding sleeve (6) disposed on one of the uprights (2). Xu does not clearly teach that the sliding sleeve engages a sliding sleeve locking mechanism configured to lock and unlock the sliding sleeve on the upright. However, Lee teaches that the sliding sleeve (3) engages a sliding sleeve locking mechanism (Figure 22, elements 61 and 62) configured to lock and unlock the sliding sleeve on the upright (2) (pg.28, lines 9-17, Figure 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with a sliding sleeve that engages a locking mechanism on the upright, as taught by Lee, to stabilize the net apparatus and prevent it from collapsing when in use in the unfolded state.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Segerman (WO 2018208926).
Regarding Claim 9, Xu teaches the net apparatus as recited in claim 1. Xu does not teach wherein the scissor mechanism comprises an element with an asymmetric configuration. Segerman teaches a scissor mechanism that comprises an asymmetric configuration for altering the force and movement distance (pg.5, lines 15-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with an asymmetric scissor mechanism, as taught by Segerman, to alter the force and movement distance for the retracting scissor mechanism.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Teng (CN 216295159).
Regarding Claim 12, Xu teaches the net apparatus as recited in claim 1. Xu does not teach it further comprising wheel mechanisms configured to removably connect to respective legs. However, Teng further teaches wheel mechanisms (7) connected to respective legs (5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with wheels connected to the legs as taught by Teng to provide known wheel means for transport purposes. Regarding the limitation configured to removably connect to respective legs, Teng does not positively disclose the wheel being removable. However, the examiner is interpreting that the wheel mechanism is capable of being removed as element 12 connects the wheel mechanism to the leg and when element 12 is detached the wheel mechanism will be removable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Zhou (CN 112274891).
Regarding Claim 14, Xu teaches the net apparatus as recited in claim 1. Xu does not disclose wherein the net comprises an elastic fabric and webbing which, when the net apparatus is in a deployed state, impart tension to the net. However, Zhou teaches the net (4) comprising an elastic fabric (Claim 6) and webbing (Figure 1) in a deployed state (Figure 1). Although Zhou does not clearly disclose that when the net apparatus is in a deployed state, it imparts tension to the net, tension is inherent to an elastic material when it is stretched; thus, it is not an inventive concept. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to provide the net apparatus of Xu with an elastic net that imparts tension in a deployed state as taught by Zhou to stretch the net in its deployed state as this is conventional in the tennis net technology to stretch the net during play so that the net is taut during game play.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711