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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the main rods, support frames, diagonal tie rods, wheels, and wheel pins must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-5 and 9-10 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 3 recites the limitation "the fixing groove" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Fixing groove is mentioned in claim 2, which claim 3 is not a dependent of. Additionally, claim 3 recites “wheel pins”. A general search of the phrase rendered different variations of pins with no overall consensus. Therefore, the examiner is requiring clarification on wheel pin definition, as no details were provided in drawings or disclosure.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fixing groove" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Fixing groove is mentioned in claim 2, which claim 4 is not a dependent of.
Claim 9 recites “wheel pins”. As stated supra, not enough information regarding structure. Clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the main rods" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Main rods are mentioned in claim 9, which claim 10 is not a dependent of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 7691015 B2 (hereinafter “Nye”).
Regarding claim 1, Nye discloses a base that has base housing (Fig. 1, 16) internally provided with a cavity (Col. 10, lines 15-16), wherein an upper portion of the base housing is recessed inwards (See Fig. 3 with arrow notation below) to form a hemispheric basketball storage recess which is used for storing a basketball; and the bottom of the base housing is bilaterally symmetrically recessed inwards (Fig. 11, 88 and 90) to form support frame storage grooves which are used for storing support frames.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nye further discloses that the base has a fixing groove (Fig. 3, 46) for fixing a main rod (Fig. 1, 26) of each of the support frames and the fixing groove is located at the front end or the rear end of the base housing.
Regarding claim 6, Nye further discloses mounting grooves (See Fig. 8 with arrow notation below) for mounting diagonal tie rods (Fig. 1, 30) are symmetrically formed on left and right sides of the base housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Nye further discloses a basketball stand (Fig. 1, 10 – basketball goal system).
Regarding clam 9, Nye further discloses main rods (Fig. 1, 22, 24, 26) of the support frames are inserted in fixing grooves (Fig. 8, see annotated figure below), and the main rods are inserted in and fixed to the base by means of wheel pins (Col. 5, lines 55-61). It is noted that “wheel pins” are not specified; however, ”wheel pin” is being interpreted as a general pin connecting means due to lack of clarity as cited in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection supra.
PNG
media_image3.png
400
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nye, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO 03066175 A1 (hereinafter “Steed”).
Regarding claim 3, Nye discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Though Nye describes receiving part (Fig. 3, 46) that is a fixing groove, it does not disclose that it has a C-shaped section, rotating grooves are symmetrically formed on two sides of the fixing groove, and wheels are rotatably connected in the rotating grooves by means of wheel pins. Steed, analogous in the art of basketball stands, discloses a groove with a C-shape (Fig. 1, 140) with rotating grooves (Fig. 1, 134 and 136) on the sides to connect wheels (Fig. 1, 118). The wheels are also disclosed to be held in place with an axle (Fig. 1, 116), or an “elongated member such as a pin”. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the connecting wheel elements from Steed to Nye’s base for ease of movement and transportability. Though it should be noted that specifically a “wheel pin” was not mentioned. However, “wheel pin” is being interpreted as a general pin connecting means due to lack of clarity as cited in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection supra.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nye, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 5983602 A (hereinafter “Allen”).
Regarding claim 4, Nye discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a fixing groove has an O-shaped section, and a pin groove is formed at a groove opening. However, Allen, analogous in the art, discloses a basketball stand base with a fixing groove (Fig. 5, 90 - recess), an O-shaped section (Fig. 5, 96), and grooves (Fig. 5, 94 – cut away portions) for mounting a rod. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of filing to combine the disclosed fixing groove of Allen to Nye’s invention to enable another mounting position to further reinforce the main basketball stand supports.
Regarding claim 5, modified Nye further discloses that the fixing groove (Allen, Fig. 5, 90 - recess) is inclined towards the center of the base housing (Allen, Col. 10, lines 9-12) and is used for mounting the inclined support frame (Allen, Col. 10, lines 3-7). It is noted that while Figure 5 of Allen shows the fixing groove to be somewhat central, in the embodiment shown in Figure 8, the groove (with the same features) is shown toward the end of the housing. Therefore, it could be considered inclined towards the center of the housing. It would be obvious to move the position based upon geometries and height of support rods used for basketball stand. Reasons for combination are stated supra regarding claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nye, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 3841631 A (hereinafter “Dolan”).
Regarding claim 7, Nye discloses the limitations of claim 1. While Nye discloses that the base may be configured to receive water (Col. 2, lines 48-50), Nye does not specifically disclose a water inlet is formed in an upper surface of the base housing, and a water outlet is formed in a lower surface of the base housing. Dolan, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses a basketball backstop which is fillable through an inlet (Fig. 1, 53) at the top and drainable through an outlet (Fig. 1, 54) at the bottom. Thus, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include both an inlet and an outlet at the top and bottom, respectively, to allow for more convenient filling and draining of a tank.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nye, as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Nye discloses the limitations of claim 8. While Nye discloses diagonal tie rods (Fig. 1, 28 and 30) having auxiliary supporting functions are respectively connected to two sides of the main rod (Fig. 1, 26), and the other end of each of the diagonal tie rods is hinged to an inner wall of a mounting groove (See Fig. 1 notated below, under broadest reasonable interpretation), it does not specifically disclose the presence of main rods each having diagonal tie rods in the plural. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this case, adding more main rods and connecting diagonal tie rods would only provide another location to position elements at. Thus, one of ordinary skill might be motivated to introduce multiple main rods (and subsequently, tie rods) in Nye’s design, to enable multi-hoop game play. Additionally, there is no criticality assigned to having this part (main rod with two attached tie rods) in duplicate, nor is it shown in any of Applicant’s drawings. See MPEP 2144 - In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
PNG
media_image4.png
310
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711