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 .
Claims 10 & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typographical error in “the connector includes 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 1-19 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 claims 1 & 14,
“a series of posts, wherein each post set within a base” – unclear whether all posts share a single base or each post has its own base. Suggested fix would be “a series of posts, each post set within a respective base.”
“a connector configured for placement within an opening of each post” – reads as one connector that fits in every post. It’s ambiguous whether each post has at least one connector or connectors are optional.
Regarding claim 15, “determining a height for each cord between the posts” – it is unclear about who/what determines the height and how. It is also under “determining” is just mental or actually setting the cord?
Regarding claim 16, “connecting the cords in a horizontal position” relative to what? Ground? Vertical axis?
Regarding claim 17, “connecting the cords in a sloping position” relative to what? Ground? Vertical axis?
All other claims are rejected due to their dependency of independent claims 1 & 14.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-16, 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pareja Garcia (U.S. Publication Number 2022/0025635).
Referring to claim 1, Pareja Garcia discloses comprising a series of posts (120), wherein each post set within a base (140); a plurality of openings placed longitudinally along a length of each of the posts (240); a connector configured for placement within an opening of each post (360), wherein the connector is configured for receiving a cord (paragraph 0139).
Referring to claim 2, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein each connector secures a cord between a first post and a second post (paragraph 0139 – cord and rope, etc. is interchangeable).
Referring to claim 3, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein each connector secures a plurality of cords between a corresponding plurality of posts to create a course configuration (paragraph 0139, Figs. 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 24 & 25).
Referring to claim 4, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the openings are in a linear arrangement along the length of the post (Figs. 1, 2 & 5).
Referring to claim 7, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the connector within the opening is held in perpendicular relationship to the post (Figs. 3 & 4).
Referring to claim 8, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the connector has a receiving end connected to a locking end by a stem (Figs. 3 & 4).
Referring to claim 9, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the receiving end is configured to receive and secure the cord, and the locking end is configured to engage the opening in the post (Fig. 1).
Referring to claim 10, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the receiving end of the connector includes an aperture (Figs. 3 & 4).
Referring to claim 11, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the aperture is formed from a first lobe-shaped opening connected to a second lobe-shaped opening (Figs. 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 24 & 25).
Referring to claim 12, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the first lobe-shaped opening includes a plurality of projections around an inner circumference of the first lobe-shaped opening (Figs. 5 & 27 – 480).
Referring to claim 13, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the projections are configured to secure the cord into a length (Fig. 1).
Referring to claim 14, Pareja Garcia discloses a series of posts, wherein each post is set vertically within a base (Fig. 1); a plurality of openings longitudinally positioned along a length of each of the posts (Figs. 1, 2, 4 & 5); a connector secured within an opening of each post, wherein the connector receives a cord for placement between at least two posts (Figs. 1 & 3); and, wherein the posts and cords are arranged into a plurality of agility course configurations (paragraph 0139).
Referring to claim 15, Pareja Garcia discloses building an agility course by providing a series of vertical posts set within a base, the posts capable of receiving a connector (Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5 & paragraph 0139); positioning the posts into an agility course configuration (Fig. 1); connecting a plurality of cords to the connector within each post (paragraph 0139, Figs. 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 24 & 25); and, determining a height for each cord between the posts (paragraph 0114, 0122, 0152, 0173).
Referring to claim 16, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the method further comprises connecting the cords in a horizontal position between each post (paragraph 0139, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 24 & 25).
Referring to claim 18, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the method further includes rearranging the agility course configuration by adding or removing posts in the series of posts (paragraphs 0112 & 0122).
Referring to claim 19, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the method further includes rearranging the agility course configuration by repositioning the cords between the series of posts (paragraphs 0112 & 0122).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pareja Garcia.
Referring to claim 5, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the openings have a keyhole shape (Figs. 1-5). Pareja Garcia does not disclose expressly a keyhole.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have wherein the openings have a keyhole shape because Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the openings have a keyhole shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Pareja Garcia’s system, and applicant's invention, to perform equally well the shaped opening taught by Pareja Garcia or the claimed wherein the openings have a keyhole shape because both opening would perform the same function of allowing things to be inserted.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Pareja Garcia to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Pareja Garcia.Referring to claim 6, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the keyhole shape is configured to receive and secure the connector (480).
Referring to claim 17, Pareja Garcia discloses wherein the method further includes connecting the cords in a linear position between each post (paragraph 0139, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 24 & 25). Pareja Garcia does not disclose connecting the cords in a sloping position between each post.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connecting the cords in a sloping position between each post because Applicant has not disclosed that having connecting the cords in a sloping position between each post provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Pareja Garcia’s system, and applicant's invention, to perform equally well the shaped opening taught by Pareja Garcia or the claimed linear position because both sloping positions would perform the same function of providing diversity in the heights.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Pareja Garcia to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Pareja Garcia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHA FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)272-8774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 730AM-4PM.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
/KESHA FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715