R 2025DETAILED 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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
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: Amended claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 19 recite limitations that are not included in Specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 1, 12, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5, recites “shows wherein a bottom of the ball catch basket is above a midpoint of at least one of the plurality of bottom frame legs”. The application as filed does not provide support for this limitation. The plurality of legs (four are shown in the figures) are height adjustable. There is no suggestion that at least one leg would be positioned such that the bottom of the ball catch basket would be above the midpoint. It appears that the claim is suggesting that the ball catch basket can be supported at an angle, assuming that the other three legs are positioned at a different level. Furthermore, the application as filed does not disclose or show the extent the plurality of legs can be adjusted. Therefore, at no point can one assume that the bottom of the ball catch basket is not below the midpoint of the at least one leg.
Claim 11, recites “wherein the orifice is aligned above the ball catch basket to be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch”. There is no support for this limitation in the application as filed. paragraph 0025 of the specification teaches “the ball catch basket can extend generally below the orifice”. There is no support for the ball catch basket to be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch.
Claim 12, recites “shows wherein a bottom of the ball catch basket is above a midpoint of at least one of the plurality of bottom frame legs”. The application as filed does not provide support for this limitation. The plurality of legs (four are shown in the figures) are height adjustable. There is no suggestion that at least one leg would be positioned such that the bottom of the ball catch basket would be above the midpoint. It appears that the claim is suggesting that the ball catch basket can be supported at an angle, assuming that the other three legs are positioned at a different level. Furthermore, the application as filed does not disclose or show the extent the plurality of legs can be adjusted. Therefore, at no point can one assume that the bottom of the ball catch basket is not below the midpoint of the at least one leg.
Claim 18, lines 15-18 recites “wherein the orifice is aligned above the ball catch basket to be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch basket and the orifice directs each of the multiple basketballs into the ball catch basket” there is not support for the above limitation in the application as filed. The drawings do not show the orifice aligned above the ball catch basket and there is no recitation of this limitation in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aipperspach (US2015/0051023A1) in view of Frostino (9,873,030).
Claim 1, Aipperspach discloses a freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus comprising:
an upper frame assembly configured to rebound shot basketballs to an orifice (net ring 81), the upper frame assembly comprising:
a plurality of upper frame arms (pair of net support arms 70, 90 and first and second ball guide 60, 65); and
a collapsible-extensible netting (collection net 80) configured to couple to the plurality of upper frame arms to form an upwardly and downwardly opened funnel shaped enclosure that directs the shot basketballs to the orifice (see marked-up figure 3 bellow);
a bottom support frame assembly (see marked-up figure 3 below) configured to collect the shot basketballs from the orifice (81), the bottom support frame assembly comprising:
a ball catch basket (ball caddy 85) configured to receive and hold multiple basketballs within a perimeter of the ball catch basket, wherein the orifice (81) directs each of the multiple basketballs into the ball catch basket (85);
a plurality of bottom frame legs (84; figures 3-6); and
a connecting component (stabilizing upright frame section 14) connecting between the upper frame assembly and the bottom support frame assembly, wherein the connecting component separates the upper frame assembly from the bottom support frame assembly to define an open ball retrieval area between a bottom of the orifice and a top of the ball catch basket and within the perimeter of the ball catch basket.
Aipperspach discloses the claimed device with the exception of the plurality of bottom frame legs being configured to be adjustable to adjust a height of one or more components of the apparatus. However, as disclosed by Frostino it is known in the art to include a plurality of height adjustable legs for a ball collector (figure 1; column 4, lines 11-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided height adjustable legs for Aipperspach’s bottom frame legs given that Frostino teaches such would accommodate convenient use of different height shooters (see marked-up figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1168
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2, Aipperspach shows wherein a top of the perimeter of the ball catch basket (85) is unencumbered by any component of the freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus from a first lateral side of the connecting component (14) around the perimeter of the ball catch basket (85) to the second lateral side of the connecting component (14; as shown in the marked-up figure 3 above). Note: the lateral sides of the ball catch basket are unencumbered by “any components”. This is also shown in figures 4 and 6.
Claim 3, Aipperspach shows wherein the open ball retrieval area is unencumbered by any component of the freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus in an area defined by the bottom of the orifice (81), the top of the ball catch basket, and within the perimeter of the ball catch basket (see marked-up figure 3 above). Note: as shown in the marked-up figure above the bottom of the orifice (the opening) is unencumbered by any component (figures 4 and 6).
Claim 4, Aipperspach shows wherein the orifice (85) extends from the connecting component (14; see marked-up figure 3 above). Note: figure 3 shows the orifice extends
Claim 5, Aipperspach as modified above further shows since the plurality of legs are height adjustable, the bottom of the ball catch basket (which is the bottom of the netting 85) may be adjusted to be positioned above a midpoint of at least one of the plurality of bottom frame legs.
Claim 6, Aipperspach shows each of the plurality of upper frame arms extend to a height above a rim of a basketball hoop (see marked-up figure 3 which shows the arms are extended above the rim).
Claim 7, Aipperspach shows each of the plurality of upper frame arms is a single piece (as shown in the figures, the upper segment of each arm is formed of a one-piece material and not formed from multiple pieces or segments; figure 3).
Claim 8, Aipperspach shows the upper frame assembly further comprises a support frame (upper frame crossbar parallel to frame crossbar 53) having a plurality of protrusion portions (first and second net support base 74 and 94; figures 9-10; paragraphs 0040, 0041) configured to couple with the plurality of upper frame arms (60, 65, 70, 90) and a flat support portion (50, 55) having the orifice (81).
Claim 9, Aipperspach shows the upper frame assembly further comprises a vertical support portion (frame 31 includes upright frame section 34) configured to couple to the connecting component.
Claim 10, Aipperspach shows the bottom frame assembly further comprises a plurality of depression portions configured to couple with the plurality of upper frame arms (first and second net support arm pivotable connector 58 and 59 and first and second ball guide pivotal connectors 64 and 69 read on the plurality of depression portions (figures 9 and 10).
Claim 11, Aipperspach further shows the orifice (81) is substantially aligned above the ball catch basket to be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch. Note: the application as filed only discloses in paragraph 0025 that the ball catch basket can extend generally below the orifice. The figures also fail to show the recited limitation.
Claim 12, Aipperspach as modified above further shows since the plurality of legs are height adjustable, the bottom of the ball catch basket (which is the bottom of the netting 85) can be adjusted to be positioned above a midpoint of at least one of the plurality of bottom frame legs.
Claim 13, Aipperspach shows for example in figure 3 the collapsible-extensible netting attached to the plurality of the upper frame arms extend a given distance above a rim of the basketball hoop and extends outward a given distance from a center point of the rim. Aipperspach does not expressly disclose the particular height or width the plurality of upper frame arms extend from the rim. It is noted that a standard, or regulation, basketball backboard measures 72 inches wide by 42 inches tall. As can be seen in figure 3 the arms extend beyond the upper segment of the backboard, and the arms extend outwardly to the corner of the backboards. It is the examiner’s position that the Aipperspach plurality of upper frame arms extend within the claimed dimensions. Nevertheless for the sake of argument It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have positioned and extended Aipperspach’s upper frame arms within the claimed range, 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).
Claim 15, Aipperspach shows the one or more components of the apparatus are reduced in size for storage and transport. The one or more components of the apparatus disclosed by Aipperspach are capable of being detached and are easily disassembled for compact transportation. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made one or more components detachable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Claim 16, Aipperspach shows one or more components of the apparatus are positioned forward of a backboard (figure 3; paragraph 0030).
Claim 18, Aipperspach discloses a freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus comprising:
an upper frame assembly configured to rebound shot basketballs to an orifice (net ring 81), the upper frame assembly comprising:
a plurality of upper frame arms (pair of net support arms 70, 90 and first and second ball guide 60, 65);
a collapsible-extensible netting (collection net 80) configured to be coupled to the plurality of upper frame arms to form an upwardly and downwardly opened funnel shaped enclosure that directs the shot basketballs to the orifice (see marked-up figure 3 above); and
a bottom support frame assembly (see marked-up figure 3 above) configured to collect the shot basketballs from the orifice (81), the bottom support frame assembly comprising:
a ball catch basket (ball caddy 85) configured to receive and hold multiple basketballs within a perimeter of the ball catch basket, wherein the orifice (81) is aligned substantially above the ball catch basket (85) to be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch basket and the orifice directs each of the multiple basketballs into the ball catch basket (85); Note: inasmuch as applicant has shown and disclosed the orifice being aligned above the ball catch basket to be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch basket, the Aipperspach would also meet the recited limitations.
a plurality of bottom frame legs (84; figures 3-6); and
a connecting stanchion (stabilizing upright frame section 14) connecting between the upper frame assembly and the bottom support frame assembly, wherein a top of the perimeter of the ball catch basket (85) from a first lateral side of the connecting stanchion around the perimeter of the ball catch basket to the second lateral side of the connecting stanchion (14) is unencumbered by any component of the freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus in an open ball retrieval area (14; as shown in the marked-up figure 3 above). Note: the lateral sides of the ball catch basket are unencumbered by “any components”. This is also shown in figures 4 and 6.
Aipperspach discloses the claimed device with the exception of the plurality of bottom frame legs being configured to be adjustable to adjust a height of one or more components of the apparatus. However, as disclosed by Frostino it is known in the art to include a plurality of height adjustable legs for a ball collector (figure 1; column 4, lines 11-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided height adjustable legs for Aipperspach’s bottom frame legs given that Frostino teaches such would accommodate convenient use of different height shooters (see marked-up figure 3 above).
Claim 19, Aipperspach discloses wherein the connecting stanchion (14) separates the upper frame assembly from the bottom support frame assembly to define the open ball retrieval area between a bottom of the orifice (81), a top of the ball catch basket (85), and within the perimeter of the ball catch basket (marked-up figure 3 above).
Claim 20, Aipperspach discloses a freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus comprising:
an upper frame assembly configured to rebound shot basketballs to an orifice (net ring 81), the upper frame assembly comprising:
a plurality of upper frame arms (pair of net support arms 70, 90 and first and second ball guide 60, 65); and
a collapsible-extensible netting (collection net 80) configured to be coupled to the plurality of upper frame arms to form an upwardly and downwardly opened funnel shaped enclosure that directs the shot basketballs to the orifice (see marked-up figure 3 above);
a bottom support frame assembly (see marked-up figure 3 above) configured to collect the shot basketballs from the orifice (81), the bottom support frame assembly comprising:
a ball catch basket (ball caddy 85) configured to receive and hold multiple basketballs within a perimeter of the ball catch basket, wherein the orifice (81) directs each of the multiple basketballs into the ball catch basket (85);
a plurality of bottom frame legs (84; figures 3-6); and
a connecting component (stabilizing upright frame section 14) connecting between the upper frame assembly and the bottom support frame assembly, wherein the connecting component separates the upper frame assembly from the bottom support frame assembly to define an open ball retrieval area between a bottom of the orifice and a top of the ball catch basket and within the perimeter of the ball catch basket (see marked-up figure 3 above),
wherein a top of the perimeter of the ball catch basket (85) is unencumbered by any component of the freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus from a first lateral side of the connecting component around the perimeter of the ball catch basket to the second lateral side of the connecting component (14; as shown in the marked-up figure 3 above). Note: the lateral sides of the ball catch basket are unencumbered by “any components”. This is also shown in figures 4 and 6.
Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matherne et al (5,418,517) hereinafter (Matherne).
Claim 14, Aipperspach discloses the claimed device with the exception of a digital scoreboard detachably connected to the connecting component, providing situational awareness to multiple shooters. However, as disclosed by Matherne (figures 1, 3; column 2, lines 65-68 and column 3, lines 1-5; and column 5, lines 40-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have attached such a digital scoreboard for Aipperspach’s device given that Matherne teaches such a scoreboard allows for detecting, analyzing, and reporting attempts to score during a basketball game.
Claim 17 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art of record as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jenkins et al (7,927,237) hereinafter (Jenkins).
Claim 17, Aipperspach discloses the claimed device with the exception of one or more retractable shot locators to facilitate accurate and consistent marking of specified shooting locations. However, as disclosed by Jenkins (basketball assembly including a plurality of delivery direction indicators 1100A-G; column 8, lines 36-64) it is known in the art to include one or more retractable shot locators for a basketball system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included such a shot locator for Aipperspach’s device given that Jenkins teaches such is a convenient way of designating desired delivery locations on a basketball court.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that support is found for the newly added limitations in paragraphs 0022 through 0039, as well as figures 1-3. The examiner respectfully asserts that the application as filed, including the PGPub only have 0036 paragraphs! The examiner has carefully reviewed paragraphs 001 through 0036, but has been unable to find support for some of the newly added limitations and found some support in the drawings for other newly added limitation. However, there is no recitation in the specification for any of the newly added limitations. As noted above 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 subject matter claimed must be present in the specification. Additionally, any structural or function feature present in the figures must also be included in the specification.
It appears that the claims have been amended to include language only to overcome the Aipperspach reference without any of the limitations previously being present in the application as filed. As noted above some of these amendments have no support in the drawings, original claims or the specification. These limitations are considered NEW MATTER (see comments under 112 1st or (a).
With regards to “the orifice is aligned above the ball catch basket to be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch basket, if by “aligned above” applicant means it is lined up with the two lateral sides of the ball catch basket, then of course it is, so is the orifice disclosed and shown by Aipperspach. However, there is no support for the orifice being aligned above the ball catch basket and be entirely within the perimeter of the ball catch basket. The drawings do not show the orifice being directly above the ball catch basket nor within the perimeter of the ball catch basket. The orifice is set back from the catch basket, at least that is what is shown in the figures and there is nothing in the specification that would clarify or support this issue.
With regards to the “wherein a top of the perimeter of the ball catch basket is unencumbered by any component of the freestanding basketball rebounding apparatus from a first lateral side of the connecting component around the perimeter of the ball catch basket to the second lateral side of the connecting component”, the Aipperspach reference (see marked-up figure 3) also does not show any component of the basketball rebound apparatus to be connected to the first and second lateral sides of the connecting component … That is readily seen in the figures. Contrary to applicant’s assertion the ball return rails 83 of ball caddy 85 do not block access to the ball catch basket as applicant appears to be suggesting, nor does Aipperspach teach away from the ball catch basket being openly accessible, this is clearly shown in the figures.
With regards to applicant’s assertion that “the Aipperspach ball caddy is for storage and transport ... Aipperspach does not provide for collecting basketballs directly in the ball caddy and could not do so because the ball caddy is not aligned with the net ring 81”. It is respectfully asserted that the net ring 81 is clearly “aligned with the ball caddy. This is evident in figure 3. Furthermore, the ball return rails disclosed by Aipperspach are capable of being repositioned so that the balls fall into the ball caddy. Therefore, Aipperspach ball caddy is capable of collecting balls.
With regards to the present invention allowing multiple users to retrieve balls from the ball catch basket, firstly, there no such limitation in the claims; secondly, even if this limitation was recited in the claims, it would be considered intended use; lastly, the structure disclosed and shown by Aipperspach is also capable of allowing one or more users to retrieve balls.
With regards to Frostino reference: Frostino is a teaching reference only for the ability to adjust the height of the legs of a ball catch/hold support in the basketball art. Frostino has not been used to address any other functional or structural features as applicant appears to be asserting.
With regards to the amended claims 5 and 12, the claims have been amended to recite “a bottom of the ball catch basket is above a midpoint of at least one of the plurality of bottom frame legs”, it is not clear what is being claimed here! The disclosed legs are height adjustable, the claim recite at least one, which means only one is required and when one leg is adjusted or what not, the bottom of the ball catch basket is at the midpoint of the one leg but not the other legs. There is no support for such an arrangement. There is also no support for having the bottom of the basket be above the midpoint of the one leg, since the legs are height adjustable and can be adjusted which allows the height of the legs to be increases or decreases. No further information is provided in the application as filed, We are merely speculating the adjustment range and in the instant where one leg is adjusted to position the bottom of the ball catch basket at above midpoint. Therefore, it would not be accurate to say that the bottom of the ball basket is above the midpoint of one leg.
In conclusion, it is the examiner’s position that Aipperspach reference reads on the pending claims. As noted above the Frostino reference is merely a teaching reference for height adjustability of the legs.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Thur, 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/
03 April 2026