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 Objections
Claims 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 3, the claim should conclude with a period. Regarding claim 4, line 2, “the end pole” should be changed to each end pole. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 5, “including a split end section” is indefinite. It is unclear if the at least one guy wire or the second end thereof includes the split end section. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other end pole" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Lines 1-2 of the claim introduce an indeterminate number of “end poles;” however, the recitation of “the other end pole” seems to require exactly two end poles. It is unclear how many end poles are required.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, “including a split end section” is indefinite. It is unclear if the at least one guy wire or the second end thereof includes the split end section. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, line 1, it is unclear how “respectively” modifies the limitation.
The term “approximately” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the position of the additional guy wire indefinite.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (CN 202892937 U using machine translation) in view of Legache et al. (EP 4186570 A1 using machine translation; hereinafter Legache).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Du discloses a guy wire system (Figure 1) for supporting a volleyball or badminton net [1] with end poles [2], comprising: at least one guy wire [15] (specifically see left pull rope [15] in Figure 1) attachable (via net-edge sleeve [13] ) at a first end [14] thereof to one of the volleyball or badminton net end poles [2] (specifically see left post [2] in Figure 1), with a second end (see lower end of pull rope [15] in Figure 2) thereof extending outwardly therefrom, including a[n] end section attachable to the ground (via chassis [4]) and at least one guy wire [15] (specifically see right pull rope [15] in Figure 1) attachable (via net edge sleeve [13]) at a first end [14] thereon to the other end pole [2] (specifically see right post [2] in Figure 1), with a second end (see lower end of pull rope [15] in Figure 2) extending outwardly therefrom, including a[n] end section attachable to the ground (via chassis [4]) (paragraphs 0030-0031, claim 2, and Figures 1-3). Du discloses the end section being annularly looped around the chassis [4] and knotted (claim 2) and thus does not disclose the end section being split. Legache, however, teaches a similar guy wire system (Figure 5) for supporting a pole [2] of a basketball hoop [3], comprising: at least one guy wire [12, 18] attachable at a first end [13b] thereof to the pole [2], with a second end (see [15]) thereof extending outwardly therefrom, including a split end section [15] attachable to the ground (via base [1]); wherein each split end section [15] includes at least two parts [15a] which angle away from each other (pages 2-4 and Figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Du’s end section as a split end section with at least two parts angling away from each other because Legache teaches that this configuration utilizes triangulation effect to contribute to the stability of the equipment (page 4).
Additional Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-5 are not rejected under art; however, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Whalen et al. (US 2014/0243119 A1), Allbright (US 5,333,880), Robl (US 5,326,109), Bouffard et al. (US 7,455,603 B2), Stettner et al. (US 4,720,112), and Wong et al. (US 5,885,176) which all disclose similar guy wire systems for supporting sporting equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY B. WALTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5286. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 am - 4:30 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.
/AUDREY B. WALTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711