DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nye (US 20020004431 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nye teaches 1. A portable basketball goal assembly, comprising; a base; See Fig. 1, a pole that extends vertically from said base; See Fig. 1; (12), at least one support arm having a first end and a second end, wherein said at least one support arm is pivotably connected to said pole at a point between said first end and said second end; See Fig. 1; (32)(38), a backboard connected to said first end of said at least one support arm; See Fig. 1; (18), a telescoping body connected between said second end of said at least one support arm and said pole, wherein said telescoping body is capable of being selectively adjusted within a range of lengths between a long first length and a shorter second length; and See Fig. 1; (60); [0050+], a locking handle on said telescoping body that locks said telescoping body to a selected length in said range of lengths. See Fig. 3-4; (3); [0048+].
Regarding claim 7, Nye teaches 7. A portable basketball goal assembly, comprising; a pole; See Fig. 1; (12), a set of support arms having first ends and second ends, wherein said set of support arms are pivotably connected to said pole; See Fig. 1; (32)(38), a bracket that supports a backboard and hoop, wherein said bracket is pivotably connected to said first ends of said set of support arms; See Fig. 1; (42) reference the rear of 42 where the 38 bolts connect to a bracket., a telescoping body connected between said second ends of said set of support arms and said pole, wherein said telescoping body is capable of being selectively adjusted throughout a range of lengths; and See Fig. 1; (60); [0050+], a locking handle on said telescoping body that locks said telescoping body to a selected length in said range of lengths. See Fig. 3-4; (3); [0048+].
Regarding claim 14, Nye teaches 14. A method of adjusting the height of a backboard on a basketball goal assembly, comprising: mounting a backboard to a pole using a set of support arms, wherein said set of support arms are pivotally connected to said pole; See Fig. 1; (12)(32)(38), connecting a telescoping body between said set of support arms and said pole, wherein said telescoping body is capable of being selectively adjusted throughout a range of lengths; and See Fig. 1; (60); [0050+], adjusting said telescoping body to a length in said range of lengths to pivot said set of support arms on said pole and move said backboard. See Fig. 4 which shows the height adjustment which when viewed in context of the disclosure would also change the height of the support arms and backboard.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 2, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nye (US 20020004431 A1) in view of Green (US 8992350 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Green teaches 2. The assembly according to Claim 1, further including a tension spring disposed within said telescoping body that biases said telescoping body into said second length. See Fig. 13; (1804); 6:27+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Green to provide biasing means in a backboard support linkage.
Regarding claim 5, Green teaches 5. The assembly according to Claim 2, wherein said telescoping body has a first tube and a smaller diameter second tube that passes into said first tube, wherein said tension spring is disposed within said first tube. See Fig. 13; (1804); 6:27+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Green to provide biasing means in a backboard support linkage.
Regarding claim 6, Nye teaches 6. The assembly according to Claim 5, wherein said locking handle is attached to said first tube. See Fig. 1; (56).
Regarding claim 8, Green teaches 8. The assembly according to Claim 7, further including a tension spring disposed within said telescoping body that biases said telescoping body into a shortest length in said range of lengths. See Fig. 13; (1804); 6:27+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Green to provide biasing means in a backboard support linkage.
Regarding claim 12, Green teaches 12. The assembly according to Claim 8, wherein said telescoping body has a first tube and a smaller diameter second tube that passes into said first tube, wherein said tension spring is disposed in said first tube. See Fig. 13; (1804); 6:27+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Green to provide biasing means in a backboard support linkage.
Regarding claim 13, Nye teaches 13. The assembly according to Claim 12, wherein said locking handle is attached to said first tube. See Fig. 1; (56).
Regarding claim 15, Green teaches 15. The method according to Claim 14, further including providing a tension spring within said telescoping body that biases said telescoping body into a shortest length in said range of lengths. See Fig. 13; (1804); 6:27+.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Green to provide biasing means in a backboard support linkage.
Regarding claim 16, Nye teaches 16. The method according to Claim 15, wherein said adjusting said telescoping body in said range of lengths includes providing a locking handle on said telescoping body that selectively locks said telescoping body into a selected length within said range of lengths. See Fig. 4 which shows the different lengths locked in place with the handle.
Claims 3, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nye (US 20020004431 A1) in view of Mower (US 6155938 A).
Regarding claim 3, Mower teaches 3. The assembly according to Claim 1, wherein said telescoping body has a plurality of holes formed therein, wherein said locking handle contains a lock peg that selectively engages said plurality of holes as said telescoping body moves through said range of lengths. See Fig. 1; (54)(68)(74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Mower to allow movement to be stopped (See 7:54+).
Regarding claim 9, Mower teaches 9. The assembly according to Claim 7, wherein said telescoping body has a plurality of holes formedtherein, wherein said locking handles contains a lock peg that selectively engages said plurality of holes as said telescoping body moves through said range of lengths. See Fig. 1; (54)(68)(74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Mower to allow movement to be stopped (See 7:54+).
Regarding claim 10, Mower teaches 10. The assembly according to Claim 9, wherein said lock peg is biased toward said plurality of holes. See Fig. 2-3; (76) wherein the spring clip 76 allows the engaging hear or lock peg to be biased towards the holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Mower to provide an outward force on the engaging head holding a peg or push button mechanism in place.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nye (US 20020004431 A1) in view of Goldberg (US 7331883 B2) and Mower (US 6155938 A).
Regarding claim 4, Goldberg teaches 4. The assembly according to Claim 3, further including a manual button for lowering and raising said lock peg to selectively engage and disengage said plurality of holes. See Fig. 1B; (151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Goldberg provide a locking trigger to keep the height of the goal set. (See 4:64+).
Regarding claim 11, Goldberg teaches 11. The assembly according to Claim 10, further including a manual button for lowering and raising said lock peg to selectively engage and disengage said plurality of holes. See Fig. 1B; (151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Nye with Goldberg to provide a locking trigger to keep the height of the goal set. (See 4:64+).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Nimwegen US 6419597 B1 - An adjustable basketball hoop with a telescopic member.
Elpers US 10864420 B2 - An adjustable basketball hoop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711