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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species II, Figure 8, claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-20, in the reply filed February 2, 2026, has been acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the claims all together place no undue burden on the Examiner. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that there would be no undue burden on the Examiner to examine both Species I and II together.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes examining multiple patentably distinct species together in the same application would impose a serious burden on the examiner, as such would require the search of multiple patentably distinct features that otherwise would not have to be searched for, applying appropriate prior art rejections and having to consider and respond to attorney arguments regarding such multiple patentably distinct features and rejections. Is it Applicant’s position that the specific features of the various species are not patentably distinct, and therefore obvious over one another? If so, then such should be clearly admitted on the record. The Examiner further notes that not only does Species II include a spacer (806), which Species I, does not, the washer (308) from Species I is removed and replaced by a locking mechanism (802).
Finally, it should be noted that, as stated at page 4 of the election requirement, upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicants will be entitled to consideration of claims to the additional species that depend therefrom or otherwise include all of the limitations of that allowable generic claim. In other words, if patentability resides in the generic aspects of the inventions disclosed as opposed to the specific features of the respective species, then there will be rejoinder of those non-elected species and if patentability resides within the specifics of the elected species, then there will be no rejoinder of the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on February 2, 2026. These drawings are approved. However, the following objection is noted:
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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.
Specification
The abstract is objected to for beginning a phrase which can be implied in lines 1-3. See MPEP 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required. The Examiner suggests the following correction to lines 1-3 of the abstract, in order to place the abstract in proper form and overcome the objection:
A playground component
The specification is objected to because in paragraph [0024], the “connector base” has been given two different reference numerals; “306” in line 1 and “308” in line 6.
Claim Objections
Each of claims 12 and 14 are objected to because at line 1, “wherein securing” should read --wherein the step of securing--, as best understood by the Examiner.
Each of claims 15 and 16 are objected to because at line 1, “wherein providing” should read --wherein the step of providing--, as best understood by the Examiner.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0080620 (Graber).
Regarding claim 1, Graber discloses a playground component (see Figures 1-15), comprising:
a rope (24, 26, 28) having a connector (54, 56, 58) pre-loaded thereon, the connector including a connector base (60) and a connector nut (62);
a component (10) having a specially shaped opening (42, being shaped by 44 and 46 in Figure 7) formed therein;
wherein the specially shaped opening is configured such that at least a portion of the connector base is insertable through the specially shaped opening when the at least a portion of the connector based is rotated to a first orientation (see Figure 12); and
wherein the specially shaped opening is configured such that the at least a portion of the connector base cannot be pulled back through the specially shaped opening when the at least a portion of the connector base is rotated to a second orientation (see Figure 14) after the at least a portion of the connector base has been inserted into the component through the specially shaped opening (see paragraphs [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Graber discloses a stop (108) connected to an end of the rope (24, 26, 28) so as to prevent the connector base (60) and the connector nut (62) from sliding off of the end of the rope (see paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Graber discloses the connector nut (62) is configured to be attached to the connector base (60) such that a portion of the component (10) that defines the specially shaped opening (42, being shaped by 44 and 46 in Figure 7) is sandwiched between the connector nut and the at least a portion of the connector base (see Figure 11 and paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 8, Graber discloses one or more spacers (see, e.g., inner threaded component 76) that are configured to increase how far the stop (108) extends into the component (10) when the connector nut (62) is attached to the at least a portion of the connector base (60) such that the portion of the component that defines the specially shaped opening (42, being shaped by 44 and 46 in Figure 7) is sandwiched between the connector nut and the at least a portion of the connector base (see Figure 11 and paragraphs [0051], [0052], and [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Graber discloses the connector nut (62) is configured to be attached to a portion of the connector base (60) that extends out of the specially shaped opening (42, being shaped by 44 and 46 in Figure 7) after the at least a portion of the connector base has been inserted into the component (10) through the specially shaped opening and rotated to the second orientation (see Figures 11 and 14).
Regarding claim 11, Graber discloses a method of assembling a playground component (see Figures 1-15), the method comprising:
providing a rope (24, 26, 28) having a connector (54, 56, 58) pre-loaded thereon, the connector including a connector base (60) and a connector nut (62);
providing a component (10) having a specially shaped opening (42, being shaped by 44 and 46 in Figure 7);
placing at least a portion of the connector base into a first orientation (see Figure 12) and then inserting the at least a portion into the component through the specially shaped opening (see Figure 2 vs. Figure 3);
rotating the at least a portion of the connector base to a second orientation (see Figure 14) within the component such that the at least a portion of the connector base cannot be pulled back through the specially shaped opening when the at least a portion of the connector base is in the second orientation (see paragraphs [0063]-[0064]); and
securing the connector nut to a portion of the connector base, thereby securing the rope to the component (see paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Graber discloses adjusting tension on the rope (24, 26, 28) by positioning one or more spacers (see, e.g. 108) on the rope inside the component (10; see Figure 11 and paragraphs [0051], [0052], and [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Graber discloses securing the connector nut (62) to the portion of the connector (54, 56, 58) further comprises threading the connector nut to the portion of the connector (see Figure 11 and paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Graber discloses providing a rope (24, 26, 28) having a connector (54, 56, 58) pre-loaded thereon further comprises providing a rope having a connector that is prevented by a stop (108) from sliding off of an and of the rope (see Figure 11 and paragraphs [0051], [0052], and [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Graber discloses a playground component (see Figures 1-15), comprising a component (10) and a rope (24, 26, 28) connected to the component utilizing a connector (54, 56, 58) that is preloaded onto the rope utilizing a stop (108) that prevents components of the connector from sliding off of the end of the rope (see Figure 11 and paragraphs [0051], [0052], and [0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Graber discloses the connector (54, 56, 58) includes a connection base (60) with a portion that can be inserted through a specially shaped opening (42, being shaped by 44 and 46 in Figure 7) in the component (10) when the portion is rotated to a first orientation (see Figure 12) but not when the portion is rotated to a second orientation (see Figure 14 and paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 19, Graber discloses the connector base (60) further comprises a connection nut (62) that is configured to be threaded to the connection base (via 76; see Figure 63 and paragraph [0047]).
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.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graber in view of US 9,803,893 (Giraudo).
Regarding claim 5, Graber discloses the playground component of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the connector base (60) and the connector nut (62) are die-cast components.
Giraudo teaches it is known in the art of component connectors to form connector bases and nuts as die-cast components in order to provide good stability at greater forces, while maintaining low cost (see column 5, lines 45-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component of Graber such that the connector base and connector nut are die-cast components, as taught in Giraudo, in order to provide the components with good stability at greater forces, while maintaining low cost.
Regarding claim 15, Graber discloses the method of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose the step of providing a rope (24, 26, 28) having a connector (54, 56, 58) further comprises providing a rope having a connector that includes a die-cast connector base (60) and a die-cast connector nut (62).
Giraudo teaches it is known in the art of component connectors to form connector bases and nuts as die-cast components in order to provide good stability at greater forces, while maintaining low cost (see column 5, lines 45-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component of Graber such that the connector base and connector nut are die-cast components, as taught in Giraudo, in order to provide the components with good stability at greater forces, while maintaining low cost.
Regarding claim 20, Graber discloses the playground component of claim 19, but does not expressly disclose the connection base (60) and the connection nut (62) are die-cast.
Giraudo teaches it is known in the art of component connectors to form connector bases and nuts as die-cast components in order to provide good stability at greater forces, while maintaining low cost (see column 5, lines 45-56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component of Graber such that the connector base and connector nut are die-cast components, as taught in Giraudo, in order to provide the components with good stability at greater forces, while maintaining low cost.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graber in view of CH 606862 (Bollinger; the citations for which are taken from the attached translation).
Graber discloses the playground component of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose the spacer is a spring.
Bollinger teaches it is known in the art of rope connectors to provide a spacer in the form of a spring (14) in order to dampen shocks which may be imparted on to a connected rope (see page 2, lines 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the component of Graber such that a spacer in the form of a spring is provided, as taught in Bollinger, in order to dampen shocks which may be imparted on to a connected rope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Graber discloses the method of claim 11, but fails to disclose the step of securing the connector nut (62) to the portion of the connector (54, 56, 58) further comprises securing the connector nut to a portion of the connector base (60) that protrudes through the specially shaped opening (42, being shaped by 44 and 46 in Figure 7) to an area outside of the component (10).
Graber instead discloses all of the components being houses within the component (10; see Figure 4 and paragraph [0046]). The prior art fails to fairly show or suggest a modification to Graber such that the step of securing the connector nut to the portion of the connector further comprises securing the connector nut to a portion of the connector base that protrudes through the specially shaped opening to an area outside of the component. Further, one ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make such a modification to Graber, as the connector (54, 56, 58) of Graber is made to be hidden within the component (10) for aesthetic purposes, as only a quarter turn of the connector base (60) is needed to tighten the rope (24, 26, 28) to the component, and thus direct outside access to the connector is not needed (see paragraphs [0040] and [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art set forth in the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in regards to rope connectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Skroupa whose telephone number is (571)270-3220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM – 3:30 PM ET.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on (571)270-5281. 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.
/Josh Skroupa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
April 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights