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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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 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 16 is 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.
The claim recites “a plurality of wheels being coupled to the base, each wheel of the plurality of wheels comprising a caster” and this language is unclear because it is not evident how a wheel comprises a caster. In ordinary mechanical terminology, a caster typically comprises a wheel and a mounting structure, rather than a wheel comprising a caster. Therefore, the structure relationship between the recited elements is ambiguous, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be reasonably determined.
For purpose of examination, examiner is considering what is being recited in the claim is a plurality of casters.
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 “a plurality of wheels being coupled to the base, each wheel of the plurality of wheels comprising a caster” must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. 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 Objections
Claims 11-13, 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are objected because they are inconsistent in format compared with the other claims (claims 1-10, 14 and 16). Claims 11-13, 15 and 17 include reference numerals identifying components, while the rest of the claims omit such numerals.
Reference numerals, when used, should be applied consistently throughout all claims to identify the corresponding elements shown in the drawings. Reference numbers, when used, should be applied consistently in the claims in accordance with 37 C.F.R. §1.75(d)(1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0346773).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a basketball scoring training apparatus (see all Figures) comprising: a base (combination of components 3, 5, 8, 24,25 as shown in Figures 2-3 ); a pair of front columns being coupled to the base at a front side of the base (71,72), the pair of front columns extending upwardly from the base and being laterally spaced from each other (see Figures 1-3); and a pair of vertex indicators (the left and right top elbow elements as shown between components 71, 72 and 73 as shown in Figure 2), each vertex indicator of the pair of vertex indicators being coupled to an associated front column of the pair of front columns (71,72), each vertex indicator (the elbows attached to 71 and 72 as shown in Figure 2) of the pair of vertex indicators being positioned adjacent to a distal end of the associated front column (71,72) with respect to the base (combination of components 3, 5, 8, 24,25 as shown in Figures 2-3), wherein the pair of vertex indicators indicates a desired vertex position between the pair of vertex indicators (as shown in Figures 1-3, the space between the elbows where component 73 is positioned is considered as desired vertex position as recited).
It should be noted that examiner is giving the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as set forth in MPEP 904.01(a). The examiner notes that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art. SEE MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the vertex indicators (the elbows as discussed in claim 1) of the pair of vertex indicators extend toward each other to indicate the desired vertex position between the pair of vertex indicators (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses a rear support being coupled to and extending upwardly from the base at the rear side of the base (the top back frame assembly (2) that is supporting the hoop as shown in Figure 3); and a ball return (83/831) being coupled to the rear support (2), the ball return (83/831) comprising a sloped member (see Figure 1), a rear end the top upper end of 831 closest to the hoop as shown in Figure 1) of the sloped member being coupled to the rear support (as shown in Figure 1, the ball return (83/831) is shown as having slope), a front end of the sloped member being coupled to the pair of front columns, the sloped member being angled downwardly from the rear end to the front end (the front end of ball return (83/831) attached to frame (7) as shown in Figure 1 is shown as having slope section that is angled downwardly from the rear to the front as recited).
Regarding claim 12, (83/831) is identified as a net in the reference.
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.
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.
Claims 7-10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gregory (US Patent No. 7,207,906).
Regarding claims 7-8, 10 and 15, Wang does not disclose wherein the base comprises a plurality of posts and a plurality of crossbars that are telescopically extendable, each crossbar of the plurality of crossbars being coupled to and extending between an associated pair of posts of the plurality of posts as recited. Gregory discloses a basketball training apparatus that comprises plurality of posts (21,21’,) and a plurality of crossbars (40,140,40’, 140’) that are telescopically extendable, each crossbar of the plurality of crossbars being coupled to and extending between an associated pair of posts of the plurality of posts as recited (see components 20, 20’, 30, 30’, 40, 40 as shown in Figures 1-2). Gregory for example shows three different telescoping pieces for the posts and crossbars as shown in Figures 1-2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Wang device with multiple telescoping and extendable crossbars and posts as recited in order to make the Wang device to make it adjustable to make the device usable both for small children and adults and make is easily collapsible for storage and easily erected for use.
Regarding claim 9, Gregory in claim 5 discloses the use of discloses the plurality of crossbars including the telescoping posts including means for releasably locking. However, Gregory does not explicitly disclose the crossbars to include locking pin and plurality of holes as recited. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the locking means of Gregory to have a locking pin and holes as recited to use another known locking means. Substituting one known method of attachment for another would have been a predictable variation, since the use of locking means and holes were a well-known and commonly used alternative to attaching/connecting adjustable components. Such substitution would have yielded the same predictable result, securing attachment of the components, without requiring any undue experimentation. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (substitution of one known element for another is obvious when it yields predictable results). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use locking pins and holes as the attachment means when the references are combined.
Regarding claim 16, Wang does not disclose the use of plurality of casters. Gregory discloses the use of casters (29) in a basketball training device is not new (see Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to provide the Wang device with casters in order to make the device to be more mobile as disclosed in column 2 lines 52 of the Gregory reference.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Woodall (US Patent No. 4,838,549).
Wang does not disclose a track comprising a pair of rails that is coupled the rear support as recited. However, the concept of proving a track with rails to a basketball training device is not a new concept and Woodall is one example of reference that teaches this concept (see ramp member (60) that has a pair of rails (61)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Wang device with track for guiding the balls from the chute to a variety of shooting positions for a basket player as disclosed in the abstract of the Woodall reference.
It is noted that the track of Woodall is not shown as being coupled to the rear support as recited. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a long track to be coupled to the rear support or at any location including to the coupling location as taught by the Woodall reference because Applicant has not disclosed that coupling the track to the back or at a specific location provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with either couple the track as taught by Woodall or the claimed attachment location because both devices perform the function of guiding a basketball to a user. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the references as combined to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record disclose or render obvious a pair of target indicators being coupled to the front pair of columns, when affixed in combination with the other recited features.
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711