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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 12, “the opposing arms” should be “the two extended opposing arms” to maintain consistent terminology.
In Claim 3, line 2, “the opposing arms” should be “the two extended opposing arms” to maintain consistent terminology.
In Claim 5, line 2, “the arms” should be “the two extended opposing arms” to maintain consistent terminology.
In Claim 8, lines 4-5, “the plate” should be “the base plate” to maintain consistent terminology.
In Claim 8, line 13, “the opposing arms” should be “the two extended opposing arms” to maintain consistent terminology.
In Claim 14, line 2, “triangular metal sheets of metal” should be “triangular metal sheets” to remove redundancy.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "hingedly attached to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are positively recited and part of the claimed invention. As the claim further recites “an elevation post on a basketball hoop system”, it is further unclear if the “elevation post” and “basketball hoop system” is positively recited, and required by the claim. Additionally the phrases “for reception of a bit in a basketball elevation post”, “alignable with the bit for engagement to a drill adapter when the base plate is hinged in a downward orientation to the elevation post where the bit is capable of protrusion through the aperture and engaged to a gear operably engaged to a screw in the elevation post for raising and lowering a hoop”, and “the rotation of a pistol drill engaged to the adapter that mates to the bit wherein the drill is capable of turning the adapter to raise and lower the basketball hoop by turning the bit” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “bit”, “drill adapter”, “gear”, “screw”, “hoop”, and “pistol drill” are positively recited and part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending the claim to clearly define what structural limitations are being claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rotation" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bracket" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear if “the bracket” is referring to the bracket system or the base plate, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification the limitation will be interpreted as “the base plate”. Examiner suggests amending the claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the opposing arms engage to form a pin in a sleeve" in line 2. It is unclear how and/or what the opposing arms engage, rendering the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests amending the claim clearly define Applicant’s invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "further comprising arms made of hardened steel" in line 2. It is unclear if the arms of claim 7 are referring to the opposing arms of claim 1 or different/additional arms, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the opposing arms of claim 1. Examiner suggests amending the claim as such to overcome the indefiniteness issues.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "hingedly attached to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are positively recited and part of the claimed invention. As the claim further recites “an elevation post on a basketball hoop system”, it is further unclear if the “elevation post” and “basketball hoop system” is positively recited, and required by the claim. Additionally the phrases “for reception of a bit in a basketball elevation post”, “aligned with the bit for engagement to a pistol drill when the base plate is hinged in a downward orientation to the elevation post where the bit is capable of protrusion through the aperture and engaged to a gear box operably engaged to a screw in the elevation post for raising and lowering a hoop”, and “the rotation of a pistol drill engaged to the bit wherein the drill is capable of turning the bit to raise and lower the basketball hoop by turning the bit” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the “bit”, “gear box”, “screw”, “hoop”, and “pistol drill” are positively recited and part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending the claim to clearly define what structural limitations are being claimed.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the rotation of a pistol drill" in lines 13-14. It is unclear if the pistol drill of lines 13-14 is the same pistol drill introduced in line 8 or a different/additional pistol drill, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the pistol drill of line 8. Examiner suggests amending the claim as such to overcome the indefiniteness issues.
Claims 9-14 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 8.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sides" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification the limitation will be interpreted as “opposing sides”. Examiner suggests amending the claim as such to overcome the antecedent basis and indefiniteness issues.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "when the base plate is hinged” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are positively recited and part of the claimed invention. As the claim further recites “for reception of a bit in a basketball elevation post gear box”, “when the base plate is hinged in a downward position to the elevation post where the bit is capable of protrusion through the aperture for engagement with the gear box operably engaged to a screw in the elevation post”, and “to provide lateral blocking to the rotation of a pistol drill engaged to an adapter that mates to the bit wherein the drill is capable of turning the adapter to raise and lower the basketball hoop by turning the bit” it is further unclear if the “bit”, “basketball elevation post gear box”, “elevation post”, “screw”, “adapter” , “basketball hoop”, and “pistol drill” are positively recited and part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending the claim to clearly define what structural limitations are being claimed.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the opposing arms" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear if the opposing arms of line 9 is the same as the “two opposing L-shaped tubular members” introduced in lines 2-3 or a different/additional feature, rendering the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the two opposing L-shaped tubular members of lines 2-3. Examiner suggests amending the claim as such to overcome the indefiniteness issues.
Claims 16-20 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the opposing arms are tubular” fails to further limit the opposing arms, interpreted as being the “two opposing L-shaped tubular members” of claim 15.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner Note
Regarding claims 1-20 which have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph: Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20020094890 A1
White, Ron et al.
US 20070054759 A1
Nye; S. Curtis et al.
US 20220288476 A1
LE CUNFF; Uisant et al.
US 20210362021 A1
Reed; Shawn et al.
US 20080039242 A1
Nye; S. Curtis
US 8206247 B2
Elpers; Philip
US 6419597 B1
van Nimwegen; Edward G. et al.
US 10864420 B2
Elpers; Philip et al.
US 8348788 B2
Nye; S. Curtis et al.
US 7393293 B2
Guerzini; Mike et al.
US 10857438 B2
Givens; Jon Casey
US 6135901 A
van Nimwegen; Edward G.
DE 10347859 A1
SALZMANN KARL
“Adjustable Basketball Hoop | Hack | Drill Bit” – NPL Document
Westhead, Michael
The above references are cited for teachings basketball hoop elevation systems similar to that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711