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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1, line 5 recites “a center diameter of the arc” is considered vague and indefinite because the diameter of the arc as shown in figure 1 would be parallel to the support surface and not perpendicular to the support surface. It appears that applicant may have intended to recite “the center radius of the arc” and not “the center diameter of the arc), since the center diameter of the arc would extend under the support surface and not above the support surface.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conwright (US2013/0143694 A1).
Claim 1, Conwright discloses a basketball teaching device (figures 1, 2 and 5), comprising:
an arc member (40; paragraph 0032), describing an arc of approximately 180 degrees, having a substantially circular body of a diameter of about 1 inch and terminating in a first end and a second end (the semicircular upright structure 12 which includes the central arc and first and second ends shown in figures 1, 2 and 5) that are each in a same plane when the arc member is upright with a center diameter of the arc member at a right angle to the plane (the support surface), a height from the plane to a topmost center diameter of the arc member being approximately 16” to 26” (paragraph 0030 and 0033; the device may be formed in different sizes and heights or alternatively made adjustable in height; the preferred height is about 12 to 26 inches); and
a first and second weighted base (perpendicular support members 16 and optionally cross-member 18 which adds additional weight and stability to the assembly; figures 1, 2 and 5 show the first and second base attached to the first and second end of the arc) coupled to the first and second end of the arc member, respectively, each of the weighted bases having a curved lower surface (the first and second base 16 are tubular, therefore, the tubular members would inherently have curved lower surfaces, this is also clearly shown in figures 1, 2 and 5), and a top internal chamber and a bottom internal chamber (see marked-up Fig. 1 where top and bottom chambers are formed to allow insertion of the PVC pipe 40 and 18 within the L-shaped connectors of the base portions 16). Conwright discloses the claimed device with the exception of the diameter of the arc being between two to eight inches. Conwright teaches that a diameter of about 1” works well (paragraphs 0035 and 0036). Conwright further teaches that the 1” PVC pipe may be covered with foam or other soft coating (parent application 8,075,425, column 2, lines 52-59; figure 5). The addition of the foam tube over the 1” PVC pipe increases the overall diameter of the pipe. It is noted that the diameter of the arc member has been given no criticality by the applicant. Lacking any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected any suitable diameter for Conwright’s PVC pipe, since both the Conwright invention and the present invention have substantially similar applications and would thus require pipes of similar diameter. The selection of a diameter of a support pipe would
have been an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rome (7,160,214).
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, Thurs, 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/
30 March 2026