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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for improper form. Applicant is reminded that each claim is to be a single sentence that begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is unclear in that it recites “slightly smaller”. The term “slightly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-5 are unclear for their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 5 is unclear in that it recites “and light source” when claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, already recites a light source. It is unclear if this is a separate and distinct light source or the same. As best understood by the Office, it is the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis US 9352208.
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses a sports bases, comprising:
a sports base (30) hollow body (col. 6 ln 9) having a utilizing surface (58) and a non utilizing surface (56), having a supporting size opening (91) for one or more LED embodied light source (50);
whereinthe opening (91) is slightly smaller (“narrow”) than the light source, in which the light source can be pushed securely into body and mounted securely (col. 14 ln. 21-30).
Regarding claim 5, Davis further disclose a waterproof body (col. 14 ln. 31-32) and light source (50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 9352208.
Regarding claim 2, Davis further discloses that said light source further comprises a control module (57) supported at said non-utilizing surface of said sports base body, wherein said control module comprises a battery compartment (82) for receiving a battery therein to electrically link to said LEDs, and a control panel (54)
However, it does not teach that the control panel is provided on said battery compartment.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that having the control panel located on the battery compartment solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the control panel selectively controls the operation of the LEDs, and it appears that Davis would perform equally well with the control panel at the claimed location, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the location of the control panel as taught by Davis by utilizing a location of the control panel as claimed for the purpose of controlling the operation of the LEDs. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 3, Davis further discloses that said control module (57) further comprises a remote operatively linked to said control panel to selectively activate said LEDs (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Davis does not teach that said control module further comprises of a rechargeable battery. Official Notice is being taken that batteries are commonly known to be either single use or rechargeable in order to prevent the need for constantly purchasing new batteries. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery as taught by Davis to be a rechargeable battery as is commonly known in order to reduce the need to repeatedly buy new batteries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other bases with lights: Earnest US 2440042, Barber US 6159113, Snyder US 7270616, and Boesch US 20070082761.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711