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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “group of connecting parts” in claims 11,13 and 14. Regarding claim 11, the examiner is interpreting the “first group” and “second group” as being the two sides of Velcro that connect to each other, as indicated in paragraph 14 of the specification. Regarding claim 12, the examiner is interpreting the “third group” and “fourth group” as being the two sides of Velcro that connect to each other, as indicated in paragraph 50 of the specification. Regarding claim 14, the examiner is interpreting the “fifth group of connecting parts” as buckles shown in Fig. 7 of the applicant drawings.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 209752114 U) in view of Davis (US 5549304 A).
Regarding claim 1, Cao teaches a portable multifunctional soccer goal (Abstract, “football”) comprising: a fabric portion (1) (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2) and a supporting structure (2) beneath the fabric portion and configured for supporting the fabric portion (Abstract, first sentence); wherein: the fabric portion comprises a left fabric portion (12), a right fabric portion (13) and a back fabric portion (14) connecting the left fabric portion and the right fabric portion (Fig. 1); the back fabric portion comprises a mesh (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2, “net”), a left long strip fabric portion (29) and a right long strip fabric portion (29) (Figures; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5), the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion being connected with the mesh (Figures; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5); the supporting structure comprises an upper crossbar (23) (Fig. 3), a lower crossbar (24), a left triangular frame (27) and a right triangular frame (27), the left triangular frame and the right triangular frame being respectively positioned at two ends of the upper crossbar (23), and the lower crossbar (24) and covered by the left fabric portion (12) and the right fabric portion (13) (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2, “net”); the lengths of the upper crossbar, the lower crossbar are identical and greater than the sum of lateral widths of the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5, last sentence); and the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion are configured to be joined by a connector (zipper-3) when the soccer goal is being transformed into a bag (Fig. 4; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraphs 5-8).
Cao does not teach a middle crossbar disposed between the upper crossbar and the lower crossbar. However, Davis teaches a middle crossbar (12) (Fig. 1) disposed between the upper crossbar (32) and the lower crossbar (18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the supporting structure of Cao with the middle crossbar of Davis for stabilizing the supporting structure.
Regarding claim 2, Cao teaches wherein when the soccer goal is being transformed into a bag (Fig. 4), the lower crossbar (24) is configured to adhere to a bottom surface of the soccer goal, while the upper crossbar (23) is configured to form an inclined arch-shaped space (Fig. 4; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraphs 5-8). Cao does not teach the middle crossbar adhering to a bottom surface of the goal when the soccer goal is being transformed into a bag. However, if the middle crossbar of Davis was provided on the supporting structure of Cao, it would be obvious to have the middle crossbar adhere to a bottom surface of the soccer goal similar to the lower crossbar due to the shape of the structure, placement of the crossbars relative to each other, and stretch of the left (103) and right (105) triangular fabrics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide Cao with the middle crossbar of Davis such that the middle crossbar adheres to a bottom surface of the goal when the soccer goal is being transformed into a bag to enable a convenient form of a bag for carrying.
Regarding claim 3, Cao teaches wherein the left triangular frame comprises an upper left vertical bar (26) (Fig. 3), a lower left vertical bar (25) and a left bent connector (27) connecting the upper left vertical bar and the lower left vertical bar (Fig. 3), while the right triangular frame comprises an upper right vertical bar (26), a lower right vertical bar (25), and a right bent connector (27) connecting the upper right vertical bar and the lower right vertical bar (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Cao teaches wherein the left bent connector and the right bent connector (27) are configured to determine the angle of opening of the soccer goal and vertically expand the fabric portion (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2, last sentence, “transversely stretching the fabric”).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Cao teaches wherein the upper crossbar, the middle crossbar and the lower crossbar are made of flexible and bendable fiberglass (claim 3; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 3, “glass fiber rod”).
Regarding claim 7, Cao does teaches wherein all the supporting structure (2) is wrapped in the fabric portion (1) (Detailed Description, paragraph 2, first sentence, “supporting frame 2 disposed inside the fabric 1; Figures), the upper left vertical bar (26) and the upper right vertical bar (26) respectively opposing to the left bent connector (27) and the right bent connector (27), which are configured to serve as a left connection point and a right connection point respectively during transformation (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 7, “first bracing piece tip and second bracing piece tip draw close…”). The vertical bars are being referred to as “bracing pieces” in the translation of Cao. Cao does not explicitly teach that the ends of the upper left and right vertical bars (26) are the only portions of the supporting structure (2) that are not wrapped in fabric (1). However, based on Figs. 3 and 4 of Cao, it would be obvious to expose (not cover with fabric) the ends of the upper left and right vertical bars (26) to connect with the ends of the lower left and right vertical bars (25) during transformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the ends of the upper left and right vertical bars (26) of Cao with uncovered portions (not covered in the fabric) to enable attachment of the ends of bars 25 and 26 of Cao with each other on the left and right sides and securing the transformation into a bag.
Regarding claim 8, Cao does not teach wherein the fabric portion (29) below the left connection point and the right connection point are colored in bright colors to enhance visual cues. However, using colors is a simple matter of design choice and does not hold patentable weight. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Furthermore, “to enhance visual cues” is intended-use language and does not structurally limit the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Cao teaches wherein hooks (28) (Fig. 3) are respectively installed at the ends of the lower left vertical bar (25) and the lower right vertical bar (25) opposing to the left bent connector (27) and the right bent connector (27) and configured to connect with the left connection point and the right connection point when the soccer goal is being transformed into the bag (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Cao teaches wherein the connector is a zipper (3), comprising a left zipper part (Fig. 2), a right zipper part (Fig. 2) and a zipper head (Fig. 4), the zipper head being configured to move from bottom of the left and right long strip fabric portions to top of left and right long strip fabric portions (Fig. 4; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5, last sentence, “the football gate is transversely retracted when the zipper is pulled up”).
Regarding claim 15, Cao teaches wherein the upper left vertical bar (26) and the upper right vertical bar (26) are configured to be pushed toward the lower crossbar (24) (Figs. 3 and 4). Cao does not teach a middle crossbar and that the upper left vertical bar (26) and the upper right vertical bar (26) are configured to be pushed toward the middle crossbar when the soccer goal is transformed to a flat storage mode in which the soccer goal fit into a flat bag. However, Cao teaches that the crossbars and vertical bars are made of “elastic bendable material” that is fiberglass (claims 2 and 3 of Cao), which is the same material the applicant is claiming the vertical bars and crossbars are made of. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have provided the bendable support structure of Cao with the middle crossbar of Davis to bend the structure as claimed by the applicant to fit into a flat bag for ease of storage.
Regarding claim 16, Cao teaches wherein the mesh (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2, “net”) is fixed (Figures; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraphs 2 and 5; claim 1) to the upper left vertical bar (26) (figures), the upper right vertical bar (26), the left bent connector (27), the right bent connector (27), the lower left vertical bar (25) and the lower right vertical bar (25), and the left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29). Cao does not teach the mesh (“net”) sewed with the left and right long strip fabric portions (29) through a left sewing thread and a right sewing thread respectively, while the left sewing thread and the right sewing thread end at a distance from both ends of the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion. However, Cao teaches that the “net” is “connected” with the long strip fabric portions on both sides (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5, first sentence). Although Cao does not explicitly teach sewing threads, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to use a sewing thread to connect the mesh with the long strip fabric portion as needed with respect to the distance from both ends of the long strip fabric portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the connection means of the mesh to the long strip fabric portion with a sewing thread as taught by Cao to hold together particular pieces of the goal.
Regarding claim 17, Cao does not teach wherein the ratio between the length of the crossbars (23 and 24) and the sum of the lateral widths of the left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29) is 3:1. However, Cao teaches that “the sum of the transverse lengths of the two strip-shaped cloth pieces (29) is smaller than the transverse length of the net (length of crossbars 23 and 24)” (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5). Regarding the particular ratio of 3:1, see In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), where the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the dimensions of Cao with a ratio of 3:1 to support transformation of the goal into a bag.
Regarding claim 18, Cao teaches a ball goal (Abstract) comprising: a fabric portion (1) (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2) and a supporting structure (2) beneath the fabric portion and configured for supporting the fabric portion (Abstract, first sentence, figures); wherein: the fabric portion comprises a left fabric portion (12), a right fabric portion (13) and a back fabric portion (14) connecting the left fabric portion and the right fabric portion (Fig. 1); the back fabric portion comprises a mesh (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2, “net”), a left long strip fabric portion (29) and a right long strip fabric portion (29) (Figures; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5), the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion being connected with the mesh (Figures; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5); the supporting structure comprises an upper crossbar (23) (Fig. 3), a lower crossbar (24), a left triangular frame (27) and a right triangular frame (27), the left triangular frame and the right triangular frame being respectively positioned at two ends of the upper crossbar (23), and the lower crossbar (24); the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion are configured to be joined by a connector (zipper-3) when the ball goal is being transformed into a bag (Fig. 4; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraphs 5-8); and when the ball goal is being transformed into a bag, the lower crossbar (24) is configured to adhere to a bottom surface of the ball goal, while the upper crossbar (23) is configured to form an inclined arch-shaped space (Fig. 4; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraphs 5-8). Cao does not teach a middle crossbar disposed between the upper crossbar and the lower crossbar. However, Davis teaches a middle crossbar (12) (Fig. 1) disposed between the upper crossbar (32) and the lower crossbar (18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the supporting structure of Cao with the middle crossbar of Davis for stabilizing the supporting structure.
Regarding claim 19, Cao does not teach wherein the ratio between the length of the crossbars (23 and 24) and the sum of the lateral widths of the left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29) is 3:1. However, Cao teaches that “the sum of the transverse lengths of the two strip-shaped cloth pieces (29) is smaller than the transverse length of the net (length of crossbars 23 and 24)” (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5). Regarding the particular ratio of 3:1, see In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), where the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the dimensions of Cao with a ratio of 3:1 to support transformation of the goal into a bag.
Regarding claim 20, Cao teaches a ball goal (Abstract) comprising: a fabric portion (1) (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2) and a supporting structure (2) beneath the fabric portion and configured for supporting the fabric portion (Abstract, first sentence); wherein: the fabric portion comprises a left fabric portion (12), a right fabric portion (13) and a back fabric portion (14) connecting the left fabric portion and the right fabric portion (Fig.1); the back fabric portion comprises a mesh (page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 2, “net”), a left long strip fabric portion (29) and a right long strip fabric portion (29) (Figures; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5), the left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29) being connected with the mesh (Figures; page 3, Detailed Description, paragraph 5); the supporting structure comprises an upper crossbar (23) (Fig. 3), a lower crossbar (24), a left triangular frame (27) and a right triangular frame (27), the left triangular frame and the right triangular frame being respectively positioned at two ends of the upper crossbar (23), and the lower crossbar (24); the left triangular frame comprises an upper left vertical bar (26) (Fig. 3), a lower left vertical bar (25) and a left bent connector (27) connecting the upper left vertical bar and the lower left vertical bar (Fig. 3), while the right triangular frame comprises an upper right vertical bar (26), a lower right vertical bar (25), and a right bent connector (27) connecting the upper right vertical bar and the lower right vertical bar (Fig. 3); and the upper left vertical bar (26) and the upper right vertical bar (26) are configured to be pushed toward the lower crossbar (24) (Figs. 3 and 4) one after another when the ball goal is transformed to a flat storage mode in which the ball goal fit into a flat bag. Cao does not teach a middle crossbar and that the upper left vertical bar (26) and the upper right vertical bar (26) are configured to be pushed toward the middle crossbar when the soccer goal is transformed to a flat storage mode in which the soccer goal fit into a flat bag. However, Cao teaches that the crossbars and vertical bars are made of “elastic bendable material” that is fiberglass (claims 2 and 3 of Cao), which is the same material the applicant is claiming the vertical bars and crossbars are made of. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have provided the bendable support structure of Cao with the middle crossbar of Davis to bend the structure as claimed by the applicant to fit into a flat bag for ease of storage.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Davis, further in view of Zhang (CN 2885339 Y).
Regarding claim 5, Cao does not teach wherein a plurality of pads with holes defined therein are attached to bottom of the fabric portion so that nails can be inserted into the ground through the holes to fix the soccer goal on the ground. However, Zhang teaches a plurality of pads (ring 14) with holes (Figs. 3 and 4, claim 5) defined therein so that nails (15) can be inserted into the ground through the holes to fix the soccer goal on the ground (Fig. 3, claim 5). Zhao does not teach pads attached to the bottom of the fabric portion. However, Zhao teaches pads placed on the right and left bent corners (7). Such placement is performing the fixation of the soccer goal on the ground similar to the placement on the bottom of the fabric. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held that changing the position of an element taught in prior was unpatentable because simply shifting its position would not have modified the operation of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the goal structure of modified Cao with pads having holes in them to receive nails to secure the structure to the ground.
Claims 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Davis, further in view of Linday (US 20210186184 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Cao teaches a left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29) near the top of the soccer goal (near element 26), and the left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29) near the bottom of the soccer goal (near element 25), and transformation of the soccer goal into a bag (Fig. 4). Cao does not teach wherein a first group of connecting parts are respectively attached to the left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29) near the top of the soccer goal (near element 26), a second group of connecting parts are respectively attached to the left long strip fabric portion (29) and the right long strip fabric portion (29) near the bottom of the soccer goal (near element 25), and the first group of connecting parts are respectively configured to connect the second group of connecting parts when the soccer goal is being transformed into the bag. However, adding first and second “groups of connecting parts” to the left and right long strip fabrics near the top and bottom of the soccer goal, such as strips of Velcro as indicated in the specification (paragraph 14), in addition to the hook (28) latching mechanism near the left and right corners of the goal to further vertically secure the connection while the goal is transformed into a bag is not a novel concept and would be obvious to one of skill in the art. The first and second groups of connecting parts of the applicant are being implemented to vertically close the goal when it is in the form of a “bag”. Linday teaches the use of “Velcro or any other suitable closure mechanism” (paragraph 77) to secure the opening of a bag. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the long strip fabric of Cao with groups of connecting parts that connect to each other, such as the Velcro taught by Linday, to close the goal when it is transformed into a bag.
Regarding claim 12, Cao teaches a left long strip fabric portion (29) and a right long strip fabric portion (29). Cao does not teach wherein the first group of connecting parts and the second group of connecting parts are rectangular pieces of Velcro sewn to the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion. However, adding first and second “groups of connecting parts” to the left and right long strip fabrics near the top and bottom of the soccer goal, such as strips of Velcro, in addition to the hook (28) latching mechanism near the left and right corners of the goal to further vertically secure the connection while the goal is transformed into a bag is not a novel concept and would be obvious to one of skill in the art. The first and second groups of connecting parts of the applicant are being implemented to vertically close the soccer goal when it is in the form of a bag. Linday teaches the use of “Velcro or any other suitable closure mechanism” (paragraph 77) to secure the opening of a bag. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the long strip fabric of Cao with groups of connecting parts, such as the velcro taught by Linday, to close the goal when it is transformed into a bag.
Regarding claim 13, Cao teaches the left fabric portion (12) and the right fabric portion (13), and transformation of the soccer goal into a bag (Fig. 4). Cao does not teach wherein a third group of connecting parts are respectively attached to outer sides of the left fabric portion and the right fabric portion in a horizontal direction, facing outward and near to bottom of the soccer goal, a fourth group of connecting parts are respectively attached to inner sides of the left fabric portion and the right fabric portion in a vertical direction, facing toward inside of the soccer goal and slightly above the center of the left fabric portion and the right fabric portion, and the third group of connecting parts are configured to respectively connect the fourth group of connecting parts when the ball goal is being transformed into a bag. However, similar to the reasoning for claim 11 above, adding third and fourth “groups of connecting parts” to the outer sides of the left and right fabric portions in a horizontal direction, such as strips of Velcro as indicated in the specification (paragraph 50) to further secure the closure of the bag is not a novel concept and would be obvious to one of skill in the art. The third and fourth groups of connecting parts of the applicant are being implemented to close the “bag” when the goal is in the “bag” state. Linday teaches the use of “Velcro or any other suitable closure mechanism” (paragraph 77) to secure the opening of a bag. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the left and right fabrics of Cao with third and fourth groups of connecting parts, such as the velcro taught by Linday, to further secure closing the goal at various connecting locations when it is transformed into a bag.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Davis, further in view of Wu (TW M519439 U).
Regarding claim 14, Cao teaches the left long strip fabric portion (29), right long strip fabric portion (29), left zipper (3) part (Fig. 2), right zipper (3) part (Fig. 2), and the lower crossbar (24) (Fig. 3). Cao does not teach wherein a fifth group of connecting parts are respectively disposed at an end of the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion and close to the left zipper part and the right zipper part, the end of the left long strip fabric portion and the right long strip fabric portion being close to the lower crossbar. However, adding a fifth group of connecting parts, such as the buckle structure shown in Fig.7 of the applicant drawings and described in paragraph 57 of the applicant specification, in addition to the zipper of Cao to further secure and consolidate the soccer goal in the horizontal direction when it is transformed into a bag, is not a novel concept and would be obvious to one of skill in the art. Wu teaches the use of multiple buckles (105) (Fig. 10) to secure the bag. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the long strip fabric of Cao with the buckles that connect to each other as taught by Wu, to more securely close the goal when it is transformed into a bag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711