DETAILED ACTION
Specification
1. 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). Correction of the following is required: “the second side plate 222” should be amended to “the second side board 222”.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “rotating connected” is grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the left and right sides of the backboard” should be amended to “a left and right side of the backboard”; “the front side of the backboard” should be amended to “a front side of the backboard”; “the left and right sides of the fixed boards” should be amended to “a left and right side of the fixed board”; “the inner side of the backboard” should be amended to “an inner side of the backboard”; “the inner side of the fixed board” should be amended to “an inner side of the fixed board”; “the bottom of the first arc-shaped chute” should be amended to “a bottom of the first arc-shaped chute”; “the left end of the support rod” should be amended to “a left end of the support rod”; “the right end” should be amended to “a right end of the support rod”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the side of the fixed board close to the mounting plate” should be amended to “a side of the fixed board closest to the mounting plate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the bottom of the second arc-shaped chute” should be amended to “a bottom of the second arc-shaped chute”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the same plane” should be amended to “a same plane”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the middle part of the supporting rod” should be amended to “a middle part of the supporting rod”. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner does not consider these informalities to rise to the level of a 112(b) rejection as they are inherent to the components, and the scope is not indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 1-6 are 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 recites the limitations "the first side board” and “the second side board”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is recommended to establish a left side first side board, a right side first side board, and a left side second side board and a right side second side board.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependency to 1.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the second side plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, this component will be construed as the second side board, as this appears to comport with the intended scope. Moreover, the recitation of “the first arc-shaped chute communicates with the second arc-shaped chute” is indefinite as a person ordinary skill in the art cannot properly ascertain the metes and bounds of this phrasing. It is suggested to amend “communicates” with “aligns”. For examining purposes, the scope will be construed commensurate with this suggested language.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitations "the left groove” and “the right groove”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2018/187685), or in the alternative, in view of Zepeda-Almazan (US Pub. No. 2023/0173361).
With respect to claims 1 and 3-5, Lin teaches a basketball hoop with folding function, comprising a basket frame 103 and a folding structure 200 (paragraph [0058]; Fig. 1), the folding structure comprises a mounting plate 201, a folding plate 203, a rotating shaft 205, a torsion spring 215 and a support rod 217 (paragraphs [0063]-[0064]); the folding plate 203 comprises a backboard 239, and a first side board 241 arranged on the left and right sides of the backboard 239, the front side 211 of the backboard 239 is fixedly connected with the basket frame 103 (Fig.’s 4A-4C; paragraph [0063], [0075]); and the mounting plate 201 comprises a fixed board 221 and a second side board 223 arranged on the left and right sides of the fixed board 221, and the rotating shaft 205 passes through the first side board 241 and the second side board 223 successively and is rotating connected with the first side board 241 and the second side board 223 (Fig.’s 2A-2B; paragraph [0064]); the torsion spring 215 is sleeved outside the rotating shaft 205 (Fig. 2B), and the torsion spring 215 comprises a first spring body, a second spring body, a toggle rod 253, a first spring torsion bar 216 and a second spring torsion bar 216 (Fig. 6A), the toggle rod 253 is in contact with the inner side of the backboard 239 (Fig. 9A; paragraph [0081]); the first side board 241 is arranged with a vertical chute 245 (Fig.’s 4A, 4C; paragraph [0076]), the second side board 223 is arranged with a first arc-shaped chute 231, and the bottom of the first arc-shaped chute 231 is arranged with a groove 233 (Fig. 3C; paragraph [0081]); the left end of the support rod 217 passes through the first arc-shaped chute 231 and the vertical chute 245 on the left side, the right end passes through the first arc-shaped chute 231 and the vertical chute 245 on the right side (Fig.’s 2A-2B; paragraph [0077], [0080]-[0081]); wherein the second side plate (or side board) 223 is arranged with a second arc-shaped chute 231, the bottom of the first arc-shaped chute communicates (i.e. aligns) with the second arc-shaped chute 231, and the bottom of the second arc-shaped chute forms a groove 233 (Fig.’s 3A, 3C; paragraph [0081]); wherein the rotating shaft 205 is a bolt (paragraph [0064]), and the bolt 205 is fixed by a nut after passing through the first side board 241 and the second side board 223 (Fig.’s 2A-2B); wherein the rotating shaft 205 is on the same plane as the vertical chute 245 (Fig. 7A, 9B).
Lin further teaches wherein the first spring torsion bar and the second spring torsion bar 216 are secured into hooks 225 positioned near an inner side of the fixed board 221 (paragraph [0081]; Fig. 2A-2B, 6A, 9A). Admittedly, the first and second spring torsion bars 216 do not “contact” the inner side of the fixed board 221 as claimed. However, per MPEP 2144.04, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) - when the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention is a particular arrangement that would not modify the operation of the device, such differences were held unpatentable. Here, applicant’s specification does not provide criticality to the spring torsion bars contacting the inner side of the fixed board. Moreover, Lin would operate as intended if its spring torsion bars 216 contacted the inner side of the fixed board instead of being seated in the hooks 225. The operational functionality of the torsional spring or hinged connection between the mounting plate and fixed plate is not modified based on the spring torsion bars contacting the fixed board or being seated in hooks 225 positioned near the fixed board. Both arrangements operate to allow torsional compression of the spring that is sleeved around the rotating shaft. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found the difference in the particular arrangement to be obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04, In re Japikse. In the alternative, examiner cites to analogous art reference Zepeda-Almazan for its teaching of first and second spring torsion bars 165 contacting an inner surface of backboard 143 (paragraph [0042]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Lin with the teachings of Zepeda-Almazan. The rationale to combine is to position the torsion bars at a known location for purposes of facilitating a functioning torsional spring that is sleeved around a rotating shaft. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the primary purpose of Lin is not frustrated by the combination.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO 2018/187685) in view of Zepeda-Almazan (US Pub. No. 2023/0173361).
With respect to claim 2, Lin fails to teach a folded plate as claimed. However, analogous art reference Zepeda-Almazan teaches the following to be known in the art: a folded plate 153 arranged on a side of a fixed board close to mounting plate 107, and a first spring torsion bar and the second spring torsion bar 165 move between the folded plate 153 and the inner surface of the fixed board 143 (paragraphs [0042]-[0043]; per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) – here, as the rim is folded the spring torsion bars 165 are capable of moving as claimed). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the folded plate portions of Zepeda-Almazan with the basketball hoop of Lin. The rationale to combine is to provide a boundary cover for the spring. This will expectantly prolong the lifespan of the spring by helping to prevent unwanted contact to the spring.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711