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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, filed July 26, 2023, are pending and are currently under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign applications with application numbers CN2022229486959, CN2022229487947, and CN2022229656273 filed November 7, 2022. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 26, 2023 has been considered and placed in the application file.
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.
Claim 10 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 10 recites that the "tube diameter of the first main support rod and the second main support rod is not less than 45-66 mm." This phrasing is indefinite because it is susceptible to at least three non-equivalent interpretations, none of which can be resolved by reference to the specification:
The diameter is at least 45 mm (construing the lower bound of the range as the operative minimum);
The diameter is at least 66 mm (construing the upper bound of the range as the operative minimum); or
The diameter falls within the range of 45 mm to 66 mm (construing the phrase as defining both a lower and upper bound).
The specification, at paragraph [0017], repeats the same ambiguous language without further clarification or definition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of this claim with reasonable certainty.
Applicant is required to amend Claim 10 to clearly specify the intended tube diameter requirement. If the intent is to recite a minimum diameter of 45 mm, the claim should read "not less than 45 mm." If the intent is a minimum of 66 mm, it should read "not less than 66 mm." If a range is intended, the claim should recite "between 45 mm and 66 mm" or equivalent clear range language.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Brumfield teaches a portable and adjustable basketball goal apparatus comprising a weighted base (10), a backboard (23) fixed to a backboard support (21), and a basketball hoop (25). (Col 2, lines 3 - 12). Brumfield teaches that a vertical upright (14), which constitutes the liftable support frame, has its lower terminal fixedly secured to the aft end of base (10). (Col 1, lines 62 - 64). The upper terminal of the movable section of the upright carries’ horizontal supports (20) which connect forwardly to backboard support (21), which in turn supports backboard (23) and basket (25). (Col 2, lines 3 - 11). Brumfield thus teaches the claimed base, backboard, basket, and liftable support frame with its bottom end fixedly connected to the base and its top end connected to the backboard.
Brumfield further teaches a vertical upright (14) that comprises a lower stationary section (16), which corresponds to the second main support rod, and an upper movable section (17), which corresponds to the first main support rod, that are telescopically engaged with one another, meaning that the first rod is sleeved inside the second rod. (Col 1, lines 65 - 68). Brumfield further teaches that upper movable section (17) is provided with a series of vertically aligned openings (18) that are selectively engaged by a retaining bolt (19), which also engages a complemental opening (18') in stationary section (16), thereby locking the rods at a selected vertical position. (Col 1, lines 68 - 70; Col 2, lines 1 - 2). This retaining bolt (19) constitutes the connecting piece that movably connects the first and second rods and permits locking at selected heights, satisfying the capability of vertical movement through the connecting piece. Brumfield further teaches that the height of the basket may be adjusted at six-inch intervals from 7 feet to 10 feet. (Col 2, lines 36 - 38).
Brumfield further teaches diagonal bracing members (15) disposed at the front of upright (14) and connected to base (10) to stabilize the structure, satisfying the limitation that a diagonal draw bar is fixed on the base. (Col 1, lines 63 - 65).
Brumfield does not explicitly teach a diagonal draw bar fixing hole at the bottom end of the second main support rod through which the diagonal draw bar is pivotally hinged to the second rod. Brumfield's bracing members (15) appear to be rigidly attached to the upright without a dedicated through-hole pivot connection at the lower end of the outer rod.
Fair teaches, in its fourth embodiment, a basketball goal system wherein a hollow pivot member (62), corresponding to the second main support rod, is connected to a hollow base member (60) by a pivot brace (64), corresponding to the diagonal draw bar. Fair teaches that the bottom of pivot brace (64) is welded to the inside of base member (60), meaning that the diagonal draw bar is fixed on the base. (Col 3, lines 46 50). Fair further teaches that pivot member (62) is secured to pivot brace (64) with a pin (66) which extends through both sides of pivot brace (64) and both sides of pivot member (62), creating a pivotal hinge connection between the diagonal draw bar and the second rod. (Col 3, lines 51 - 55). Fair further teaches that portions (72) and (74) of the front and rear surfaces of pivot member (62) have been removed so that pivot member (62) may rotate around pin (66), thereby moving between a vertical and an approximately horizontal position. (Col 3, lines 55 - 57). Fair further teaches that when pivot member (62) is positioned vertically, holes (70) defined through both sides of pivot member (62) and holes (68) defined through both sides of pivot brace (64) are in registry, and a pin may be inserted through holes (70) and (68) to hold pivot member (62) in the vertical position. (Col 3, lines 58 - 65). These holes (70) through the lower region of pivot member (62) constitute the claimed diagonal draw bar fixing hole in the bottom end of the second main support rod through which the hinge connection is made, satisfying the limitations that the bottom end of the second main support rod has a diagonal draw bar fixing hole and that the diagonal draw bar is hinged to the second main support rod through the fixing hole.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the pivotal hinge-through-hole connection taught by Fair into the braced telescoping basketball stand of Brumfield. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that replacing the rigid brace members (15) of Brumfield with a pivotally connected diagonal draw bar of the type taught by Fair, connected through holes in the lower portion of the outer rod, would allow the basketball stand to fold compactly for transport and storage. Compact foldability for portable basketball equipment was a universally recognized and longstanding design objective in the field, and both Brumfield and Fair are directed to the same field of portable, adjustable basketball goal systems. The hinge-through-hole mechanism of Fair is mechanically straightforward and its incorporation into the telescoping upright of Brumfield would have been within the ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B1), further in view of Levi et al (US 4,949,809 A), and further in view of Linder et al (US 2,169,105 A).
Regarding claim 2, Brumfield teaches the base, backboard, basket, telescoping upright, and retaining bolt connecting piece as set forth above. The modified Brumfield does not teach a locking ring connecting piece having a V-shaped opening at the top of the second rod and a U-shaped buckle member with a lock bolt.
Levi teaches an extendable pole locking mechanism comprising an outer tubular pole member (12) and an inner tubular member (14) disposed telescopically therein. (Col 1, lines 9 - 14). Levi teaches a sleeve (42) secured to one end of outer pole member (12), and a rotatable locking ring (46) fitted onto sleeve (42) and free to rotate about the longitudinal axis of the pole assembly. (Col 3, lines 1 - 8). Levi further teaches that locking ring (46) comprises an aluminum insert (50) having a notch (52) that extends the full height dimension of the ring and is sized to receive a rack (36) on inner tubular member (14), along with a plurality of arcuate teeth (56) on the inner surface of the insert. (Col 3, lines 8 - 15). The notch (52) in insert (50) of locking ring (46), in combination with the corresponding opening in sleeve (42) that accommodates rack (36) of the inner tube, corresponds to the claimed V-shaped opening at the top of the second main support rod. The locking ring (46) straddling the inner tube through this notch and engaging rack (36) corresponds to the claimed U-shaped buckle member positioned in the V-shaped opening. Levi further teaches that when notch (52) is aligned with rack (36), the inner tube may be extended or retracted to any desired height, and when locking ring (46) is rotated approximately a quarter turn, teeth (56) thereof mesh with teeth (40) on rack (36) to prevent relative motion between inner and outer tubular members (12) and (14). (Col 3, lines 10 - 18). The rotational engagement mechanism of locking ring (46) achieves the locking function of the claimed lock bolt passing through the U-shaped buckle member.
Levi qualifies as analogous prior art because the reference is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely telescoping tubular pole assemblies having releasable height-locking mechanisms, and is reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor was attempting to solve providing a quick, tool-free mechanism for locking the telescopically adjustable height of a tubular support structure. MPEP 2141.01(a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retaining bolt of Brumfield with Levi's locking ring mechanism in the base combination of Brumfield and Fair in order to provide tool-free, rapid height adjustment by quarter-turn rotation, as Levi discloses this advantage over conventional fastener-based systems (Col 3, lines 10 - 18). The substitution applies a known technique for achieving secure, adjustable locking to a known device of similar purpose and would predictably result in a telescoping upright that can be adjusted and locked at a desired position without tools, thereby improving user convenience. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 3, Levi teaches a two-piece locking ring (46) comprising an outer plastic segment (48) and an aluminum insert (50) that, together, form a clamping structure straddling the inner tube's rack (36), as set forth above. The two components of the locking ring (46) together form a structure functionally equivalent to the claimed U-shaped buckle member with two arms (Col 3, lines 1 - 18).
Levi does not explicitly teach a threaded lock bolt passing through the two arms of the U-shaped buckle member.
Linder et al. teach a U-shaped clamp member (25) having two arms, a headed bolt (23) passing through both arms, and a nut (27) tightened to draw the arms of the clamp member (25) together around a cylindrical saddle post (26), thereby frictionally gripping the post (Spec., pg. 2, FIG. 1). The U-shaped clamp member (25) with a headed bolt (23) threading through apertures in both arms to draw the arms together corresponds to the claimed U-shaped buckle member with two arms and a threaded lock bolt passing through the arms to clamp them together. Linder qualifies as analogous prior art as a reference in the same field of mechanical clamping devices for cylindrical members, reasonably pertinent to the problem of securing two arms of a U-shaped bracket around a cylindrical member using a threaded fastener. MPEP 2141.01(a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clamping arms of Levi's locking ring to employ a U-shaped buckle member fastened by a threaded lock bolt as taught by Linder in order to achieve positive, tool-actuated compressive clamping of the buckle around the inner rod. Linder demonstrates that threading a bolt through both arms of a U-shaped clamp member is a known means for generating controlled compressive force on a cylindrical member, thereby securely locking telescoping members in place. The modification would have produced predictable results. KSR Int'l co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U,s. 398, 415421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 US.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B1) further in view of Wilson et al (US 4,145,044 A).
Regarding claim 4, Brumfield teaches the base, backboard, basket, telescoping upright, and retaining bolt connecting piece as set forth above. Brumfield does not teach a pull-pin connecting piece with a pinhole at the top of the second rod and a plurality of adjusting holes along the length of the first rod.
Fair teaches the pivotal hinge-through-hole connection at the base of the second rod as set forth above. The modified Brumfield does not teach a pull-pin connecting piece.
Wilson teaches a portable basketball stand having a pair of telescopic tubes (42) and (44), wherein tube (42) is the outer lower rod and tube (44) is the inner upper rod (Col 2, lines 33 40). Wilson teaches a stepped collar (50) surrounding the upper end of outer tube (42), the collar having diametrically aligned apertures (52) in its larger cylindrical portion (51), and diametrically aligned apertures (43) near the upper end of outer tube (42) (Col 2, lines 33 - 43). These apertures (52) and (43) located at and near the top of the outer tube (42) correspond to the claimed pinhole at the top of the second main support rod. Wilson further teaches a plurality of diametrically aligned apertures (45), (46), (47), and (48) at axially spaced intervals along the inner tube (44), corresponding to the claimed plurality of adjusting holes distributed along the length of the first main support rod (Col 2, lines 43 - 49). Wilson further teaches a cotter-type pin (55) that extends diametrically through holes (52) in the stepped collar (50) and aligned holes (43) of the outer tube (42), and into one of the selected holes (45) through (48) in the inner tube (44), locking the telescopic tubes at a selected height (Col 2, lines 49 - 55). This cotter-type pin (55) corresponds to the claimed pulling pin clamped in the pinhole and extending into an adjusting hole to lock the rods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retaining bolt of Brumfield with the pull-pin mechanism of Wilson in the base combination of Brumfield and Fair in order to provide indexed, tool-free height adjustment. Wilson expressly teaches that its cotter-type pin enables secure, tool-free height adjustment by positive engagement at discrete increments. Both Brumfield and Wilson address portable basketball stands with telescoping uprights requiring secure, adjustable locking. The substitution applies a known mechanism for addressing the same technical problem and would predictably result in a telescoping upright assembly with indexed, tool-free, and secure height adjustment. KSR co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B l), further in view of Wilson et al, (US 4,145,044 A), and further in view of Taylor (US 6,461,074 B2).
The combination of Brumfield, Fair, and Wilson, as addressed in the rejection of Claim 4 above, is incorporated herein by reference. The modified Brumfield with Wilson does not teach a spring-loaded pull pin having a discrete raised head and a spring that biases the pin to automatically self-engage with the adjusting holes upon release.
Taylor teaches a locking mechanism for a telescopically adjustable extension pole comprising a collar assembly (16) that includes a collar member (50), a bottom trigger member (52), a top trigger member (54), and a locking pin (56) (Col 3, lines 19 - 25). Taylor teaches that the locking pin (56) is received within a bore in the top trigger member (54) and is directed radially inwardly toward apertures (36) in the inner tubular sleeve (18) (Col 3, lines 22 - 27). Taylor further teaches that when a user releases the bottom trigger member (52), the flexible top trigger member (54) springs back inwardly and drives the chamfered end (116) of the locking pin (56) into the nearest aperture (36) in the inner tubular sleeve (18), automatically locking the sleeve at the adjusted length (Col 4, lines 1 - 12). The self-engaging, spring-biased locking pin (56) corresponds to the claimed spring-loaded block pin, the raised button surface on the bottom trigger member (52) corresponds to the claimed raised head, and the spring-return action of the flexible top trigger member (54) corresponds to the claimed spring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Taylor's spring-biased, self-engaging locking pin into the pull-pin mechanism of Wilson as applied to the Brumfield and Fair combination in order to provide automatic, reliable engagement of the pin with the adjusting holes after height adjustment. Taylor expressly teaches that this feature locks the sleeve at the adjusted length upon release, thereby improving ease of use and minimizing the risk of incomplete locking. The modification would predictably result in a telescoping upright assembly with a spring-loaded pull pin that automatically locks into place upon release, providing secure, tool-free height adjustment. KSR Int'l co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B1), further in view of Thornell (US 4,793,611 A), and further in view of Schall (US 5,649,780 A).
Brumfield teaches the base, backboard, basket, telescoping upright, and retaining bolt connecting piece as set forth above. Brumfield does not teach a threaded collar connecting piece comprising an internal fixing part with external threads and a longitudinal gap, and an external rotating part with internal threads.
Fair teaches the pivotal hinge-through-hole connection at the base of the second rod as set forth above. The modified Brumfield does not teach a threaded collar connecting piece.
Thornell teaches an adjustable-height basketball goal in which the elongated upright comprises an upper column (18), corresponding to the first main support rod, and a lower column (19), corresponding to the second main support rod, interconnected by a threaded height-adjustment mechanism (Col l, lines 35 - 48). Thornell teaches helically-oriented interrupted male threads (32) through (39) on the external cylindrical surface of the upper column (18), and complementary interrupted helical female threads (42) located contiguous to the open end of the lower column (19) (Col 1, lines 49 - 65). Thornell further teaches that the upper column (18) can be moved axially within the lower column (19) to a desired height and then rotated less than 90 degrees to interlock the male threads with the female threads, locking the columns at that height (Col 2, lines 1 - 12). The male threads (32) through (39) on the outer surface of the inner column (18) correspond to the external thread of the internal fixing part, and the female threads (42) on the inner surface of the end portion of the lower column (19) correspond to the internal thread of the external rotating part. The rotatable engagement of these threaded portions satisfies the limitation that the first and second rods are screwed and fixed through the connecting piece.
Thornell does not explicitly teach an adjustable longitudinal gap in the internal fixing part extending from its bottom to its top.
Schall teaches a collet assembly for telescoping pole structures comprising an inner collet member (22) mounted on a larger-diameter tube (12) and an outer collet member (24) threadedly engaging the inner collet member (22). Schall teaches that the inner collet member (22) has a plurality of resilient fingers (22e) arranged at spaced intervals and separated by elongated slots (22f), the elongated slots extending along the longitudinal axis of the inner collet member (22) (Col 2, lines 35 - 55). These elongated slots (22f) running lengthwise through the fixing portion of the inner collet member (22) correspond to the claimed adjustable longitudinal gap in the internal fixing part, as they define gap regions that permit radial compression of the fingers. Schall further teaches that a tapered interior portion of the outer collet member (24) urges resilient fingers (22e) radially inwardly when the outer collet member (24) is tightened onto the inner collet member (22), compressing the collet ring (26) against the inner tube (14), and locking the telescoping tubes at a desired axial position (Col 3, lines 10 - 35). Schall qualifies as analogous prior art as a reference in the same field of telescoping tubular assemblies with releasable height-locking mechanisms employing threaded inner and outer members. MPEP 2141.01(a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Brumfield's retaining bolt with Thornell’s threaded collar mechanism in the combination of Brumfield and Fair, and to further incorporate Schall's longitudinal slots into the internal fixing part of Thornell's design, in order to provide a telescoping upright that can be adjusted to any height and securely clamped by compressive friction, thereby reducing the risk of accidental slippage and ensuring positional stability during use. Thornell's threaded collar provides stepless, tool-free adjustment and locking (Col 2, lines 1 - 12), while Schall's longitudinal slots enable compressive clamping by allowing the fixing part to grip the inner tube radially upon tightening. The resulting assembly would provide continuous, tool-free height adjustment and reliable, compressive locking of the telescoping upright. KSR Intl co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B]), further in view of Thornell (US 4,793,611 A), further in view ofPu11ey (US 3,802,702 A), and further in view of Schall (US 5,649,780 A).
The combination of Brumfield, Fair, and Thornell is addressed in the rejection of Claim 6 above, and that analysis is incorporated herein by reference. The modified Brumfield with Thornell teaches interrupted male threads (32) through (39) on the outer surface of inner column (18) and interrupted female threads (42) on the inner surface of the end portion of lower column (19), satisfying the limitations that the external thread is on the outer surface of the internal fixing part and the internal thread is on the inner surface of the external rotating part (Col 1, lines 49 - 65). Thornell does not explicitly teach a slit extending the full length of the internal fixing part.
Pulley teaches a telescoping brace structure for a basketball hoop support comprising an outer tubular channel member (42) and an inner extension member (52), wherein a threaded bolt (48) engages extension member (52) through the wall of channel member (42) to fix their relative positions by friction and set-screw type locking (Col I , lines 44 - 55). Pulley confirms that compressive, friction-based locking mechanisms for telescoping basketball pole structures were established in the basketball equipment field.
Schall teaches the elongated slots (220 in the inner collet member (22) of a telescoping pole assembly, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above. The elongated slots (22f) run the full length of the fixing portion of the inner collet member (22), directly corresponding to the full length longitudinal slit in the internal fixing part recited in Claim 7, and perform the function of allowing the fixing part to compress around the inner telescoping tube upon tightening of the outer rotating member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal fixing part of Thornell's threaded collar by incorporating a full-length longitudinal slit, as taught by Schall, in order to provide uniform, distributed compressive clamping along the entire engaged length of the inner rod, thereby improving positional stability under load and minimizing the risk of slippage during use. Pulley confirms that compressive locking mechanisms are well-suited for telescoping basketball uprights and supports the rationale for implementing such techniques in this context. The modification would have produced predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.Ss 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B1), further in view of Steed et al. (US 6,866,596 B2).
Claim 8 further recites the limitation directed to a specific base-to-rod attachment mechanism comprising: a base fixing hole and a limiting hole both located at the bottom end of the second main support rod; a clamping groove disposed in the base; a fixing pin having a roller, where the fixing pin passes through the clamping groove and the base fixing hole to pivotally connect the base to the bottom end of the second rod; a limiting pin received in the limiting hole; and a limiting groove disposed on the upper surface of the base into which the limiting pin is received to secure the second rod in its upright playing position.
Brumfield teaches the base, backboard, basket, and telescoping upright with its lower terminal fixedly secured to the base as set forth above. Brumfield does not explicitly teach the specific combination of a clamping groove in the base, a fixing pin with a roller through the clamping groove and a base fixing hole in the second rod, a limiting pin in a limiting hole at the bottom of the second rod, and a limiting groove on the upper surface of the base.
Fair teaches the pivotal hinge-through-hole connection at the base of the second rod, as set forth above. The modified Brumfield does not teach the specific base-to-rod attachment mechanism recited in claim 8.
Steed teaches a portable basketball goal system including a support pole (110) and a base (112), wherein support pole (110) is pivotally connected to base (112) by an axle (116) that is inserted through one or more openings in the lower end of support pole (110), with first end (120) and second end (122) of axle (116) extending outwardly from both sides of the support pole. (Col 5, lines 15 - 21). The openings in the lower end of support pole (110) through which axle (116) passes correspond to the claimed base fixing hole in the bottom end of the second main support rod. Steed further teaches a locking member (124) attached to the lower end of support pole (110), comprising an elongated pin or rod inserted through one or more openings in the support pole, with first end (126) and second end (128) extending from both sides. (Col 6, lines 42 - 48). The openings in support pole (110) through which locking member (124) is inserted correspond to the claimed limiting hole in the bottom end of the second rod. Steed further teaches axle receiving portions (134) and (136) in base (112) formed as downwardly extending notches that receive first and second ends (120) and (122) of axle (116). (Col 7, lines 4 - 10). These notch-type receiving portions in the base correspond to the claimed clamping groove in the base. Steed further teaches at least one wheel (118) connected to axle (116) to facilitate movement of the portable basketball system, meaning that axle (116) bearing wheel (118) constitutes the claimed fixing pin with a roller that passes through the clamping groove and the base fixing hole to pivotally connect the base to the bottom end of the second rod. (Col 6, lines 25 - 32). Steed further teaches a locking member receiving portion (150) in base (112) that includes grooves (152) and (154) near the upper surface (156) of base (112), which are sized and configured to receive first end (126) and second end (128) of locking member (124) when support pole (110) is in the playing position. (Col 8, lines 1 - 7). These grooves (152) and (154) near the upper surface of base (112) correspond to the claimed limiting groove on the upper surface of the base, and locking member (124) received within them corresponds to the claimed limiting pin that is received in the limiting groove to secure the second rod in its upright position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Steed's base-to-rod attachment mechanism into the telescoping basketball stand of Brumfield as modified by Fair in order to provide secure yet tool free and rapidly releasable attachment of the upright to the base. Steed expressly discloses that its interlocking axle and locking member approach facilitates rapid assembly, disassembly, and transport of basketball goal systems. Both Steed and Brumfield address portable, adjustable basketball goal systems, and the resulting assembly would provide a portable stand with secure, tool-free upright attachment and rapid conversion between assembled and transport configurations, thereby improving user convenience and portability. KSR Intl Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brumfield (US 3,025,058 A) in view of Fair (US 6,626,773 B1), further in view of Dalebout et al. (US 5,540,429 A).
Regarding claim 9, Brumfield teaches a height adjustment range from 7 feet to 10 feet (Col 2, lines 36 - 38). Ten feet is approximately 3.05 m, satisfying the claimed maximum height of 3.05 m. Brumfield does not explicitly teach a specific tube diameter of not less than 66 mm for the telescoping upright sections.
Fair teaches the pivotal hinge-through-hole connection as set forth above. The modified Brumfield does not explicitly teach specific tube diameters for the telescoping upright.
Dalebout teaches an adjustable height basketball standard comprising a lower tube secured to a ground surface and an upper tube that telescopes with respect to the lower tube to change the height of a backboard. (Col 1, lines 42 - 47). Dalebout addresses the structural and dimensional requirements for commercially manufactured adjustable basketball standards and their telescoping pole components. A minimum tube diameter of 66 mm for a basketball standard upright designed to extend to a maximum height of 3.05 m represents a standard structural engineering dimension that is well within the knowledge and ordinary skill of a person designing a stable, regulation-height portable basketball stand, providing adequate rigidity and resistance to bending under expected loading. The selection of this tube diameter is a routine engineering sizing decision involving no more than ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05. Moreover, modification of a specific dimension within a range known to be suitable is prima facie obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the telescoping upright of the Brumfield and Fair combination with tube diameters of not less than 66 mm in order to provide sufficient structural strength and stability at the 3.05 m maximum height taught by Brumfield, as Dalebout et al. establish that tube diameter is a standard dimensional parameter routinely selected for this purpose. The resulting upright would have the necessary integrity to safely support the backboard at the claimed height. KSR Int'l co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 97 (2007).
Claim 10 is separately rejected under 35 U.S.C. S 112(b) as indefinite, as set forth above. The following rejection is made to the extent claim 10 can be given a definite meaning, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the tube diameter limitation of claim 10 is construed as requiring a tube diameter of at least 45 mm, which is the lower bound of the recited range.
Brumfield teaches a height adjustment range from 7 feet to 10 feet, which encompasses a height of approximately 2.1 m, as 7 feet is approximately 2.13 m. (Col 2, lines 36 - 38). A maximum height of 2.1 m is therefore within the adjustment range taught by Brumfield and is widely recognized as a standard youth basketball rim height. Brumfield does not explicitly teach a tube diameter limitation.
Dalebout et al. address the structural and dimensional requirements for adjustable basketball standard uprights, as set forth above. Dalebout et al. establish that tube diameter is a standard design parameter determined by persons of ordinary skill in the art to ensure adequate structural strength and stability at a given upright height. For a basketball standard extending to a maximum of 2.1 m, selecting a tube diameter of at least 45 mm is a routine engineering determination to provide the necessary load-bearing capacity and rigidity for safe operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the telescoping upright of the Brumfield and Fair combination with a tube diameter of at least 45 nun at a maximum height of 2.1 m, as Dalebout et al. establish that tube diameter is a standard dimensional parameter routinely selected by persons of ordinary skill in the art based on the intended upright height and load, and the selection of a dimension within the 45-66 mm range would have involved no more than routine engineering judgment. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711