DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 ends in two periods (“..”) and should only end in one period (“.[[.]]”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught (US 9,573,076) in view of Hahn (DE8106766U1) and Ross (GB2552347A).
Regarding claim 1, Vaught teaches a horse jump (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a base (Figs. 1-2, “base” 20); a post (Figs. 1-2, “shaft enclosure”, 140) supported by the base (As shown in Figs. 1-2); a motor (Fig. 3, “motor”, 110) supported by the base (As shown in Figs. 1-3, supported by the base inside “first motor enclosure” 121); a threaded actuator screw (Figs. 1-2, “linear actuator” 30 with “threaded shaft” 130; see Col. 4, lines 46-65) adjacent the post (Figs. 1-2, “linear actuator shown adjacent “threaded shaft” 130 inside “shaft enclosure” 140) and in mechanical communication with the motor (“Preferably each linear actuator 30 includes a motor 110 (FIG. 3) enclosed in a motor enclosure 120 and connected with a lower end 132 of a threaded shaft 130 that extends upwardly through a shaft enclosure 140.”, Col. 4, Lines 46-49); a communications module (Fig. 3, “control circuit” 70) in electronic communications with the motor (As shown in Fig. 3; “a first motor enclosure 121 includes a battery 81 as the power source 80, and the control circuit 70”, Col. 4, Line 66 – Col. 5, Line 1); a coupler (Figs. 1 and 4, “bar support”, 40) engaged with the threaded actuator screw and configured to advance along a primary axis of the post (“Each linear actuator 30 is adapted to move a bar support 40 thereof vertically between a lowered position 50 (FIG. 5) and a raised position 60 (FIG. 2).”, Col. 4, Lines 14-16).
Vaught does not expressly disclose a stabilizing rod fixed to the base and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw.
However, in an analogous jumping hurdle art, Hahn teaches a stabilizing rod (Fig. 1, “vertical guides” 10, shown as rods) fixed to the base (Fig. 1 shows “vertical guides” 10 fixed to the base/“cross strut” 21 of “stand” 5 underneath “sliding carriage” 3) and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw (Fig. 1, “threaded spindle” 13 shown parallel to “vertical guides” 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught to further include a stabilizing rod fixed to the base and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw, as taught by Hahn, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the motor/actuator have adequate support to stay aligned on the threaded spindle as weight from the horizontal rods/jump bars is added to the respective carrier, thereby advantageously providing the option to add a third horizontal jump bar as disclosed by Hahns to the horse jump of Vaught.
Vaught as modified by Hahn does not expressly disclose a retrieval system configured to return a displaced rail to a support position on the horse jump.
However, in an analogous equestrian hurdle art, Ross teaches a retrieval system configured to return a displaced rail to a support position on the horse jump (Figs. 7-11; “Fig. 11 is a schematic of the different positions of the rotary cup on the uprights of the device of the present invention as the pole falls and is drawn back up onto the cup assembly.”, Brief Description of the Invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn, further including a retrieval system configured to return a displaced rail to a support position on the horse jump, as taught by Ross, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the horse jump “provides a system whereby the rider can return the fallen poles to rebuild the jump(s) without having to repeatedly stop and dismount from their horse”, as discussed by Ross, p. 4, Lines 22-24.
Regarding claim 4, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the motor is disposed within the post.
However, Vaught further teaches the motor (Fig. 3, “motor”, 110) is disposed within an enclosure (Fig. 3, “a first motor enclosure” 121) under the post (Figs. 1-2, “shaft enclosure”, 140; “a first motor enclosure” 121 shown directly under).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross wherein the motor is disposed within the post, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, such as moving the actuator motor from an enclosure under the post to inside the shaft enclosure to provide a more compact horse jump for storage or transport, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Vaught as modified by Hahns and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 1.
Further, Hahns teaches further comprising a second stabilizing rod fixed to the base and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw (Fig. 1, “vertical guides” 10; two shown fixed to base/“cross strut” 21 of “stand” 5 underneath “sliding carriage” 3 and both shown running parallel to “threaded spindle” 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught further comprising a second stabilizing rod fixed to the base and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw, as further taught by Hahn, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the motor/actuator have adequate support to stay aligned on the threaded spindle as weight from the horizontal rods/jump bars is added to the respective carrier, thereby advantageously providing the option to add a third horizontal jump bar as disclosed by Hahns to the horse jump of Vaught.
Regarding claim 6, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 1. Further, Vaught teaches wherein the coupler abuts the post (Figs. 1-2, “bar support” 40 shown abutting “shaft enclosure” 140; see Col. 4, lines 46-65).
Regarding claim 7, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 1. Further, Vaught teaches further comprising a wireless network wherein the communications module links the wireless network to the motor (Fig. 1, “control circuit” 70 includes “wireless receiver” 200, whereby a wireless control signal is received by the “wireless receiver” 200; see Col. 5, lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 8, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 7. Further, Vaught teaches further comprising a remote control in connection with the wireless network whereby the height of a plurality of horse jumps can be set (See Col. 5, lines 17-34; the height of the animal jump is adjusted remotely connected to the “wireless receiver” 200).
Regarding claim 9, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 1. Further, Vaught teaches wherein the post further comprises an access track in the post (Fig. 1 shows “shaft enclosure” 140 includes “longitudinal slot” 150; see Col. 4, lines 46-65).
Regarding claim 16, Vaught teaches a method of setting the height of a plurality of horse jumps comprising: connecting a plurality of a horse jumps to a processor (Fig. 3, “control circuit” 70 and “control connectors” 190; “The first motor enclosure 121 may include a pair of the control connectors 190, whereby an external control line 16 may be connected with each of the control connectors 190 to direct the circuit 70 to power each motor 110 to either raise or lower the at least one bar support 90. In an alternate embodiment, the control circuit 70 of at least the first motor enclosure 121 includes a wireless receiver 200, whereby a wireless control signal may be received by the wireless receiver 200 and conveyed to the circuit 70 for powering each linear actuator 30 to either raise or lower the at least one bar support 90.”, Col. 5, Lines 17-27) wherein each horse jump (Figs. 1-2) comprises: a base (Figs. 1-2, “base” 20); a motor (Fig. 3, “motor”, 110) supported by the base (As shown in Figs. 1-3, supported by the base inside “first motor enclosure” 121); an actuator screw (Figs. 1-2, “threaded shaft” 130 of “linear actuator” 30; See Col. 4, Lines 46-65) extending orthogonally from the base and in mechanical communication with the motor so as the motor can rotate the actuator screw in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction (As shown in Fig. 2, “threaded shaft” 130 of “linear actuator” 30 inside “shaft enclosure” 140); a nut (Figs. 1 and 4, “bar support”, 40) circumscribing the actuator screw (“A proximal end 42 of the bar support 40 includes a threaded portion 160 rotationally engaged with the threaded shaft 130.”, Col 4, Lines 51-53) and configured to actuate axially along a primary axis of the actuator screw (Described in Col. 4, Lines 46-65: “the bar support 40 to be raised or lowered in accordance with the direction that the motor 110 spins the threaded shaft 130”) wherein the nut supports a cross-bar (Fig. 1, “jump bar”, 90; shown attached to “bar support” 40); sending instructions from a terminal to the processor (Fig. 3, using “wireless receiver” 200 and “control circuit” 70) to set each horse jump to the pre-determined height; and actuating the nut to the instructed height (Described in Col 5, lines 17-27: “the control circuit 70 of at least the first motor enclosure 121 includes a wireless receiver 200, whereby a wireless control signal may be received by the wireless receiver 200 and conveyed to the circuit 70 for powering each linear actuator 30 to either raise or lower the at least one bar support 90.”).
Vaught does note expressly disclose a stabilizing rod fixed to and extending orthogonally from the base to brace the actuator screw.
However, in an analogous jumping hurdle art, Hahn teaches a stabilizing rod Fig. 1, “vertical guides” 10, shown as rods) fixed to and extending orthogonally from the base (Fig. 1 shows “vertical guides” 10 extending orthogonally from and fixed to the base/“cross strut” 21 of “stand” 5 underneath “sliding carriage” 3) to brace the actuator screw (Fig. 1, “threaded spindle” 13 shown parallel to “vertical guides” 10 with all attached to “carriage” 3, thus “guides” 10 brace “spindle” 13 to and along “carriage” 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Vaught to further include a stabilizing rod fixed to and extending orthogonally from the base to brace the actuator screw, as taught by Hahn, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the motor/actuator have adequate support to stay aligned on the threaded spindle as weight from the horizontal rods/jump bars is added to the respective carrier, thereby advantageously providing the option to add a third horizontal jump bar as disclosed by Hahns to the horse jump of Vaught.
Vaught as modified by Hahn does not expressly disclose a retrieval system configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump.
However, in an analogous equestrian hurdle art, Ross teaches a retrieval system configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump (Figs. 7-11; “Fig. 11 is a schematic of the different positions of the rotary cup on the uprights of the device of the present invention as the pole falls and is drawn back up onto the cup assembly.”, Brief Description of the Invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn, further including a retrieval system configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump, as taught by Ross, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the horse jump “provides a system whereby the rider can return the fallen poles to rebuild the jump(s) without having to repeatedly stop and dismount from their horse”, as discussed by Ross, p. 4, Lines 22-24.
Regarding claim 17, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the method of claim 16. Further, Vaught teaches further comprising a wireless network wherein the instructions are sent wirelessly from the terminal to the processor (Described in Col 5, lines 17-27: “the control circuit 70 of at least the first motor enclosure 121 includes a wireless receiver 200, whereby a wireless control signal may be received by the wireless receiver 200 and conveyed to the circuit 70 for powering each linear actuator 30 to either raise or lower the at least one bar support 90.”).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught (US 9,573,076) in view of Hahn (DE8106766U1) and Ross (GB2552347A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhou (CN207769219U).
Regarding claim 2, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose further comprising a hinge wherein the hinge allows a portion of the post to pivot.
However, in an analogous jumping hurdle art, Zhou teaches a hinge wherein the hinge allows a portion of the post to pivot (Fig. 1, post/”bar” 8 shown hingedly attached to “base” 3 to allow the post to pivot, as shown by arrows and dashed lined image of the post).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross further comprising a hinge wherein the hinge allows a portion of the post to pivot, as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation for success, to allow the jump of Vaught to be folded up for transport or storage and so that the hurdle bar will move when knocked, providing a safer horse jump.
Regarding claim 3, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 2 but does not expressly disclose wherein the hinge is biased towards an upright position.
However, in an analogous jumping hurdle art, Zhou teaches wherein the hinge is biased towards an upright position (Fig. 1 shows the hinge/pivot for the hurdle and post; Fig. 3 shows spring/”elastic card” 12 used to return the post and hurdle to the upright position; “When railing 8, fixed column 6 dumps forward around pin rod 2, will not occur falling and hurting phenomenon, improve practitioner practice interest”, “Operation Principle”, translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross wherein the hinge is biased towards an upright position, as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a safer jumping hurdle that will move when knocked and also return to the initial position, further providing more effective training, as discussed in Zhou, “Operation Principle”, Translated.
Regarding claim 10, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose wherein the post comprises a first interior sleeve and a second exterior sleeve wherein the threaded actuator screw actuates the second sleeve to axially extend the primary axis length of the post.
However, Vaught teaches the linear actuator (30) actuates to raise the bar support ( 40) along the primary axis of the shaft enclosure (140).
Further, in an analogous jumping hurdle art, Zhou teaches wherein the post comprises a first interior sleeve and a second exterior sleeve (Fig. 1, “fixed column” 6 and “telescopic vertical column” 7) wherein the actuator actuates (note, Vaught above is relied upon for teaching raising with a linear actuator) the second sleeve to axially extend the primary axis length of the post (Fig. 1 shows “telescopic vertical column” 7 extending in the axial direction of the “fixed column” 6; “fixed column 6, by pin elastic telescoping rod 4 by telescopic column 7 upwards twitch, carry out across The height of railing 8 is adjusted, and is applicable in the maxi-mum height of trainer, practitioner during hurdling practice, when trainer encounter across When railing 8”, “Operation principle”, translated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross wherein the post comprises a first interior sleeve and a second exterior sleeve wherein the actuator actuates the second sleeve to axially extend the primary axis length of the post, as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation for success, since a telescopic rod was shown as a known alternative in the art for adjusting the height of a hurdle jump bar, it would have been reasonable to modify the actuated bar support of Vaught with the telescopic rods of Zhou in order to telescopically reducing the size of the rod for transport or storage.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught (US 9,573,076) in view of Hahn (DE8106766U1), Zhou (CN207769219U), and Ross (GB2552347A).
Regarding claim 11, Vaught teaches a horse jump (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a base (Figs. 1-2, “base” 20); a post (Figs. 1-2, “shaft enclosure”, 140) supported by the base (As shown in Figs. 1-2); a motor (Fig. 3, “motor”, 110) supported by the base (As shown in Figs. 1-3, supported by the base inside “first motor enclosure” 121); an actuator (Figs. 1-2, “linear actuator”, 30) adjacent the post (Figs. 1-2, “linear actuator shown adjacent “threaded shaft” 130 inside “shaft enclosure” 140) and in mechanical communication with the motor (“Preferably each linear actuator 30 includes a motor 110 (FIG. 3) enclosed in a motor enclosure 120 and connected with a lower end 132 of a threaded shaft 130 that extends upwardly through a shaft enclosure 140.”, Col. 4, Lines 46-49); a communications module (Fig. 3, “control circuit” 70) in electronic communications with the motor (As shown in Fig. 3; “a first motor enclosure 121 includes a battery 81 as the power source 80, and the control circuit 70”, Col. 4, Line 66 – Col. 5, Line 1); and a coupler (Figs. 1 and 4, “bar support”, 40) engaged with the actuator and configured to advance along the primary axis of the post (“Each linear actuator 30 is adapted to move a bar support 40 thereof vertically between a lowered position 50 (FIG. 5) and a raised position 60 (FIG. 2).”, Col. 4, Lines 14-16).
Vaught does not expressly disclose a stabilizing rod fixed to the base and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw.
However, in an analogous jumping hurdle art, Hahn teaches a stabilizing rod (Fig. 1, “vertical guides” 10, shown as rods) fixed to the base (Fig. 1 shows “vertical guides” 10 fixed to the base/“cross strut” 21 of “stand” 5 underneath “sliding carriage” 3) and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw (Fig. 1, “threaded spindle” 13 shown parallel to “vertical guides” 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught to further include a stabilizing rod fixed to the base and running substantially parallel to the threaded actuator screw, as taught by Hahn, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the motor/actuator have adequate support to stay aligned on the threaded spindle as weight from the horizontal rods/jump bars is added to the respective carrier, thereby advantageously providing the option to add a third horizontal jump bar as disclosed by Hahns to the horse jump of Vaught.
Vaught as modified by Hahn does not expressly disclose a post sleeve sheathed over the hollow post wherein the post telescope sleeve is configured to telescopically extend beyond the distal end of the post; the actuator configured to actuate the post sleeve.
However, in an analogous jumping hurdle art, Zhou teaches a post sleeve sheathed over the hollow post (Fig. 1, “fixed column” 6 and “telescopic vertical column” 7) wherein the post telescope sleeve is configured to telescopically extend beyond the distal end of the post; the actuator (note, Vaught above is relied upon for teaching raising with a linear actuator) configured to actuate the post sleeve (Fig. 1 shows “telescopic vertical column” 7 extending in the axial direction of the “fixed column” 6; “fixed column 6, by pin elastic telescoping rod 4 by telescopic column 7 upwards twitch, carry out across The height of railing 8 is adjusted, and is applicable in the maxi-mum height of trainer, practitioner during hurdling practice, when trainer encounter across When railing 8”, “Operation principle”, translated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn to further include a post sleeve sheathed over the hollow post wherein the post telescope sleeve is configured to telescopically extend beyond the distal end of the post; the actuator configured to actuate the post sleeve, as taught by Zhou, with a reasonable expectation for success, since a telescopic rod was shown as a known alternative in the art for adjusting the height of a hurdle jump bar, it would have been reasonable to modify the actuated bar support and shaft enclosure of Vaught with the telescopic rods of Zhou in order to telescopically reducing the size of the rod for transport or storage.
Vaught as modified by Hahn and Zhou does not expressly disclose a retrieval system comprising at least one of a spring. counterweight. or motor configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump.
However, in an analogous equestrian hurdle art, Ross teaches a retrieval system comprising at least one of a spring. counterweight. or motor (Fig. 2, “motor” 8) configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump (Figs. 7-11; “Fig. 11 is a schematic of the different positions of the rotary cup on the uprights of the device of the present invention as the pole falls and is drawn back up onto the cup assembly.”, Brief Description of the Invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Zhou, further including a retrieval system comprising at least one of a spring. counterweight. or motor configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump, as taught by Ross, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the horse jump “provides a system whereby the rider can return the fallen poles to rebuild the jump(s) without having to repeatedly stop and dismount from their horse”, as discussed by Ross, p. 4, Lines 22-24.
Regarding claim 12, Vaught as modified by Hahn, Zhou, and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 11. Further, Vaught teaches further comprising a stabilizer configured to orient the coupler in relation to the actuator (Figs. 3-4, “bar support” 40 is connected to “linear actuator” 30; see Col. 4, lines 46-65).
Regarding claim 14, Vaught as modified by Hahn, Zhou, and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 11. Further, Vaught teaches wherein the coupler circumscribes the sleeve (Figs. 1-2, “bar support” 40 abuts the “shaft enclosure” 140; see Col. 4, lines 46-65).
Regarding claim 15, Vaught as modified by Hahn, Zhou, and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 11. Further, Vaught teaches wherein the sleeve comprises a keyhole track (Fig. 1 shows “shaft enclosure” 140 includes “longitudinal slot” 150; see Col. 4, lines 46-65).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught (US 9,573,076) in view of Hahn (DE8106766U1), Zhou (CN207769219U), and Ross (GB2552347A) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Chen (CN210933576U).
Regarding claim 13, Vaught as modified by Hahn, Zhou, and Ross teaches the horse jump of claim 11 but does not expressly disclose wherein the actuator further comprises a chain and sprocket wherein a first sprocket is fixed to a first end of the post and a second sprocket is fixed to a second end of the post and a chain coupling the first sprocket to the second sprocket.
However, in an analogous physical training device art, Chen teaches wherein the actuator further comprises a chain and sprocket wherein a first sprocket is fixed to a first end of the post and a second sprocket is fixed to a second end of the post and a chain coupling the first sprocket to the second sprocket (Figs. 1-3 show a “first rotating wheel” 5 fixed to a “fixed cylinder” 7, a “second rotating wheel” 5 fixed to a “movable cylinder” 11, and a “steel wire rope” 6 coupling the “first rotating wheel” 5 to the “movable cylinder” 11; See first paragraph under “Examples” in the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn, Zhou, and Ross wherein the actuator further comprises a chain and sprocket wherein a first sprocket is fixed to a first end of the post and a second sprocket is fixed to a second end of the post and a chain coupling the first sprocket to the second sprocket, as taught by Chen, with a reasonable expectation for success, since the arrangement of Chen was a known alternative for actuating the raising and lowering of telescopic rod, it would have been reasonable to modify the actuator of Vought in view of Zhou with the arrangement of Chen using smaller parts like wheels and wire, instead of the solid long screw of Vaught, to more easily transport the device.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught (US 9,573,076) in view of Hahn (DE8106766U1) and Ross (GB2552347A) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Conlan (US 2021/0012293 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Vaught as modified by Hahn teaches the method of claim 16 but does not expressly disclose further comprising a scanning a badge worn wherein the badge comprises the instructions.
However, Ross further teaches further comprising a scanning a smart phone wherein the smartphone comprises the instructions (“The wireless controller may be a small hand held remote with activation means. The automated device of the present invention may alternatively be linked and activated by a smart phone containing an app which activates the device.”, p. 7, lines 10-12; note, applicant’s specification states: “For example, modular processing unit (or computer device) 100 may be employed alone or with one or more similar modular processing units as a smart phone, a cellular phone, a feature phone, a tablet computer, a smart television, a mobile computer device, a personal computer, a notebook computer, a PDA or other hand-held device, a workstation, a minicomputer, a mainframe, a supercomputer, a multi- processor system, a network computer, a processor-based consumer device, a smart appliance or device, a control system, and/or the like. Indeed, in some embodiments, the modular processing unit 100 comprises at least one of a server and a computer device (including, without limitation, a wireless computer device).”, para. [0033], and “In some embodiments, the badge is a cell phone or mobile device.”, Para. [0064]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn further comprising a scanning a badge worn wherein the badge comprises the instructions, as taught by the smart phone and app of Ross, with a reasonable expectation for success, since applicant has not disclosed that a badge solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a smartphone or similar remote device, as implicitly taught by the wireless receiver of Vaught and the smart phone with app of Ross.
Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross, does not expressly disclose further comprising a scanning a badge with a scanning device, worn wherein the badge comprises the instructions are physically encoded on the badge, and wherein the badge lacks computational capabilities independent of the scanning device.
However, in an analogous horse show art, Conlan teaches further comprising a scanning a badge with a scanning device, worn wherein the badge comprises the instructions are physically encoded on the badge, and wherein the badge lacks computational capabilities independent of the scanning device (“In the context of a horse show, the resource can include a rider (competitor), trainer, judge, photographer, groundskeeper, horse, and/or pieces of equipment (such as a badge, piece of equestrian gear, or some other device configured for radio communication, such as RFID, tracked explicitly, such as via a checklist, or the like).”, Para. [0038]; note, the scanning device is discussed earlier: “The bus of a computer system can couple a processor to an interface. Interfaces facilitate the coupling of devices and computer systems. Interfaces can be for input and/or output (I/O) devices, modems, or networks. I/O devices can include, by way of example but not limitation, a keyboard, a mouse or other pointing device, disk drives, printers, a scanner, and other I/O devices, including a display device.”, Para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross, further comprising a scanning a badge with a scanning device, worn wherein the badge comprises the instructions are physically encoded on the badge, and wherein the badge lacks computational capabilities independent of the scanning device, as taught by Conlan, with a reasonable expectation for success, since a badge using RFID was an art-recognized equivalent for wirelessly sending information to a computer to carry out instructions (See Conlan, Para. [0038] & Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-11, 18, and 22), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide instructions on badges to users to use without the need to carry their smartphone onto the horse show jump course.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaught (US 9,573,076) in view of Hahn (DE8106766U1) and Ross (GB2552347A) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of McComb (US 6,715,448).
Regarding claim 19, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the method of claim 16 but does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are pre-programmed on the terminal.
However, in an analogous equestrian hurdle art, McComb teaches wherein the instructions are pre-programmed on the terminal (Fig. 9, 130; “Once the two cups 56 and 58 are at an equal distance above the ground and at the extreme top of the range of movement button 2 is pressed to enter mode 1. With the selector switch in position “A” depressing button 2 enters mode 1. Mode 1 is the run or operational mode and the buttons of the controller when depressed cause both jump cups 56 and 58 to move. In mode 1 buttons 17 and 18 cause both jump cups to lower or rise in three-inch increments respectively. The jump cups will rise to the upper limit of movement that is set in mode 2 and will lower all the way to the ground.”, Col. 5, Lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross wherein the instructions are pre-programmed on the terminal, as taught by McComb, to reduce the time, errors, and workers required to set up the hurdles, as discussed by McComb, Col. 1, lines 21-27.
Regarding claim 20, Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross teaches the method of claim 16 but does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to be set manually by a user.
However, in an analogous equestrian hurdle art, McComb teaches wherein the instructions are configured to be set manually by a user (Fig. 9, 130; “With the selector switch 136 is in position “A” when button 1 is depressed the microprocessor program enters mode 2. Mode 2 is a set up mode. It is used to make two different adjustments to the jump rail 30 (FIG. 2). First, the rail may be adjusted so that the rail is at the top of the range of movement that it will attain in all other modes of operation. This is the zero position. Once the zero position is established, the rail may not move any higher. Second, the position of the two cups 56 and 58 (FIG. 2) may be adjusted so that each jump cup is of equal distance above the ground and so that the rail 30 will be generally parallel to the ground. If the ground is not level, the jump cups 56 and 58 may be independently adjusted so that the rail 30 is generally level.”, Col. 4, Lines 17-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Ross wherein the instructions are configured to be set manually by a user, as taught by McComb, to reduce the time, errors, and workers required to set up the hurdles, as discussed by McComb, Col. 1, lines 21-27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument “none teaches or suggests an automatic retrieval system for a horse jump rail”, it is first noted that amended claim 1 does not require the system be automatic.
Further, in an analogous equestrian hurdle art, Ross (first cited in Non-Final Office Action dated 10/01/2024) teaches a retrieval system comprising at least one of a spring. counterweight. or motor (Fig. 2, “motor” 8) configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump (Figs. 7-11; “Fig. 11 is a schematic of the different positions of the rotary cup on the uprights of the device of the present invention as the pole falls and is drawn back up onto the cup assembly.”, Brief Description of the Invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the horse jump of Vaught as modified by Hahn and Zhou, further including a retrieval system comprising at least one of a spring. counterweight. or motor configured to automatically return a displaced rail to a support cup of the horse jump, as taught by Ross, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the horse jump “provides a system whereby the rider can return the fallen poles to rebuild the jump(s) without having to repeatedly stop and dismount from their horse”, as discussed by Ross, p. 4, Lines 22-24.
Thus, in view of Ross, the prior art in combination teaches each and every newly added limitation in the amended claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571)272-6909. 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.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647