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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
1. Claim 1, 2, 6, 11-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey (US 5082261 A) in view of Raba et al. (US 4613136 A). Regarding claims 1 and 2, Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop assembly comprising (see abstract): a base portion (18 and 6) having an enclosed interior cavity (internal space to 18); an upper portion (12) secured to the base portion (see Fig. 2 – 12 is secured by way of 10) ; and a rim (14) secured to the upper portion and configured to support a net (16; see Fig. 2) However, Pelfrey fails to teach a first aperture formed in the base portion and extending from an exterior of the base portion to the enclosed interior cavity and a second aperture formed in the base portion. Raba et al. teaches a first aperture (23) formed in the base portion and extending from an exterior of the base portion to the enclosed interior cavity (Figures and col. 3, ll. 9-17 – a fill aperture would inherently provide access to the interior cavity) and a second aperture formed in the base portion (24).
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 basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the fill and drain apertures of Raba to selectively fill the base portion to have a ballast when in use and drain the base of water when it is desired to move the hoop (see Raba, col. 3, ll. 9-17)
In regards to claim 6, the modified Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop assembly, further comprising a ball recess formed in the base portion and configured to receive a basketball (see Fig 2 of Pelfrey, aperture (20) which is a circular shaped hole equipped to hold a basketball in the base of the assembly).
In regards to claim 11, Pelfrey teaches further comprising an additional upper portion (10), the additional upper portion having a width and height that is different than a width and a height of the upper portion.
Regarding claim 12, Pelfrey teaches a portion of a front surface of the upper portion is substantially planar and defines a backboard (backboard, 12).
Regarding claim 13, Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop, further comprising a recess formed in the backboard that defines a shooter's square (see Fig.1 below, where a square is centrally located on backboard 12)
PNG
media_image1.png
281
289
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 15-16, Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop, but is silent as to wherein the rim comprises an upper half and a lower half secured to the upper half. The claimed phrase “wherein the rim comprises an upper half and a lower half secured to the upper half” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, the rim is made from two halves connected to each other. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden shifts to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Pelfrey is silent as to the process of securing a lower half to the upper half of two halves of a rim, it appears that the rim 12 in Pelfrey would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product are both composed of plastic (see [45] of applicant’s spec).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop, wherein the lower half is welded to the upper half. Similar to the rejection above in claim 15, the claimed phrase “wherein the lower half is welded to the upper half” is being treated as a product by process limitation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the well-known process of welding to connect two halves of a material to form a full piece.
Regarding claim 19, Pelfrey teaches a plurality of net apertures (72) formed in the rim as seen in Fig 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
186
185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig 2, item (72) is the net apertures in rim (70)
2. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey in view of Raba et al., further in view of Thornell (US 4793611 A). While the modified Pelfrey (with Raba et al.), teaches a basketball hoop assembly, it fails to teach at least one projection on one of the base portion and the upper portion; and at least one recess in the other of the base portion and the upper portion that mates with the at least one projection. Thornell teaches this as follows: As shown by FIGS. 3 and 4, the interrupted female threads 56, 57 and 58, 59 open on the interior of the tubular column 19 for receiving the interrupted, helical-oriented male threads, selected from 32-39, which are disposed on the exterior surface of the upper column 18 (col 3, lines 24-28). The base portion is analogous to the tubular column 19 with female threads 56-59 (recesses), and the upper portion is analogous to the upper column 18 with the male threads 32-39 (projections). While these elements are referred to as threads by Thornell, they are the same structure as the claimed recesses and projections.
PNG
media_image3.png
160
158
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 modified basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the mating of a projection in the upper portion and recess in the base of Thornell to best connect the upper and lower portion seamlessly.
Regarding claim 4, the protrusions of Thornell (col 4, line 46) encompass at least one projection comprises a pair of projections on the upper portion and the recessed grooves of the base (col 4, lines 48-51) encompass at least one recess comprises a mating pair of recesses formed in the base portion.Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey in view of Raba et al., further in view of Bibbens (US 20150367219 A1). While the modified Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop assembly, it fails to teach a pair of wheels rotatably secured to a bottom of the base portion. Bibbens teaches this as follows: a pair of wheels rotatably secured to a bottom of the base portion [0017].
Therefore, 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 modified basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the wheels of Bibbens to have greater transportability capabilities for the assembly (Bibbens, [0017]).
3. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey in view of Raba et al., as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, and further in view of Huang (US D1019836 S).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop further, however it fails to teach comprising at least one nub formed on a bottom surface of the recess and configured to help retain a basketball within the recess. Huang teaches this in Fig 9 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
753
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
There is a plurality of raised indentations at the bottom of ball recess in the base, analogous to at least one nub.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the modified assembly of Pelfrey with the nubs of Huang to best contain a basketball (see Fig 9 of Huang).
Regarding claim 8, the further modified Pelfrey with Huang teaches a basketball hoop, wherein a bottom surface of the recess is sloped downwardly toward a front of the base portion; situated at the forward end of the body (18) is a through bore (24) of a square cross section which extends downward from a top surface of the body (18) to a bottom surface (26). As will best be seen from FIG. 3, the body (18) has a concave bottom (26) which defines, with the underlying floor, a cavity for a purpose explained below (Pelfrey, col 3, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Pelfrey with Huang teaches a basketball hoop, further comprising a recess drain aperture formed in a bottom surface of the ball recess; located at a rearward end of the body (18) is an access aperture (20) which communicates with the interior of the hollow body (18), and through which sand can be introduced. The aperture (20) is situated in the middle of a depression (22) for directing sand into the interior of the body (18), whereby the body (18) can be stably counter-balanced by the sand (Pelfrey, col 3, lines 1-5). While Pelfrey doesn’t explicitly state a recess drain aperture, it is understood that liquid can be drained through the aperture similar to the usage of sand in the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Pelfrey with Huang teaches a basketball hoop, wherein the recess drain aperture extends through the base portion from a bottom surface of the ball recess to a bottom surface of the base portion; see Fig 2 of Pelfrey below:
PNG
media_image5.png
183
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Item (20) is analogous to the claimed recess drain aperture. Because the base of the prior art is a hollow molded plastic body, item (20) extending through the base portion from a bottom surface of the ball recess to a bottom surface of the base portion is inherent to a hollow interior.
4. Claim 14 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey in view of Raba et al., further in view of Jolly (US 5305997 A). While the modified Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop, it fails to teach wherein the rim is releasably secured to the upper portion by a pair of screws received in a mating pair of threaded inserts seated in a pair of rim mounting recesses formed in the rim. Jolly teaches this as follows: Preferably, the attaching means comprises one or more first bolts which extend through holes in the rim portion and which are attached to the mounting portion and further comprises one or more second bolts which extend through holes in the mounting portion and which are attached to the rim portion (col 2, lines 22-27).
Therefore, 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 modified basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the method of attaching the upper portion to the rim of Jolly to ensure a secure attachment of the rim to the upper portion and increase resistance to damage when enduring impact from a user’s shots.
PNG
media_image6.png
272
266
media_image6.png
Greyscale
5. Claim 17 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey in view of Raba et al., further in view of McGivern (US 5098091 A). While the modified Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop, it fails to teach wherein the lower half is secured to the upper half by a plurality of snap hook fasteners. McGivern teaches this as follows: Each strap element 30 is provided with quick connect/disconnect fastening means in the form of complementary releasable fasteners for attaching the hoop formed elongated rod 22 to the basketball rim 14. As shown in the drawings, the complementary releasable fasteners comprise male and female snap fasteners 32, 34 which are attached to the opposite ends of each strap element 30, in order to permit quick, easy and reliable mounting of the hoop formed elongated rod 22 and associated basketball net 12 relative to the basketball rim 14, as shown in FIGS. 1-2 and 5 of the drawings (col.4, lines 45-55).
PNG
media_image7.png
157
213
media_image7.png
Greyscale
While McGivern doesn’t explicitly teach the upper and lower half of the rim being connected via snap hook fasteners, the process of using snap hook fasteners to connect the hoop to the rim can be applied to the claimed process of connecting the upper and lower half portions of the rim.
Therefore, 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 further modified basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the process of using the snap hook fasteners of McGivern to connect the upper and lower halves of the rim as another option in ensuring a secure connection of the two portions of the rim in the overall hoop assembly.
6. Claim 18 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey in view of Raba et al., further in view of Brooks, III (US D899539 S). While the modified Pelfrey teaches a basketball hoop, it fails to teach wherein the lower half is secured to the upper half by a plurality of rim screws received in mating threaded inserts seated in rim recesses formed in the rim. Brooks, III uses screws in the attachment of rim securing plates to the basketball hoop as seen in Fig 2:
PNG
media_image8.png
333
467
media_image8.png
Greyscale
While Brooks, III doesn’t explicitly teach the usage of these rim screws to secure the upper half to the lower half of the rim as claimed, this process of using screws to secure parts of a rim composition can be applied to the instant application.
Therefore, 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 further modified basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the process of using screws to provide another option to ensure a secure connection of the two portions of the rim in the overall hoop assembly.
7. Claim 20 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Pelfrey in view of Raba et al, further in view of Bibbens. The limitations of the claim are the same as those aforementioned above, with no additional limitations. As such, they are appreciated in the same manner: basketball hoop assembly comprising (see Abstract of Pelfrey): a base portion having an enclosed interior cavity (Located at a rearward end of the body (18) is an access aperture (20) which communicates with the interior of the hollow body (18) (Pelfrey, col 3, lines 1-3)); a first aperture formed in the base portion proximate a top of the base portion and extending from an exterior of the base portion to the enclosed interior cavity (Raba et al., Figures and col. 3, ll. 9-17 – a fill aperture would inherently provide access to the interior cavity; a second aperture formed in the base portion proximate a bottom of the base portion and extending from an exterior of the base portion to the enclosed interior cavity (The base 5 preferably includes an opening and more preferably 2 openings such as the fill opening 23 and drain opening 24 shown in FIG. 2 (Raba et al., col 3, lines 9-11)); a substantially planar portion of a front of the upper portion defining a backboard: ((2) a backboard which is a planar surface adjustably connectable to the attachment plate of the base--the backboard preferably including a plurality of wings extending therefrom; (Raba et al., col 1, lines 54-56); a ball recess formed in the base portion and configured to receive a basketball (aperture (20) of Pelfrey, having a circular shape sized to receive a basketball) an upper portion ((12) of Pelfrey) releasably secured to the base portion (Pelfrey, see Fig. 2 – 12 is secured by way of 10), a substantially planar portion of a front of the upper portion defining a backboard ((12) of Pelfrey); a recess formed in the backboard that defines a shooter's square (see Fig 1 of Pelfrey, where an indented square is formed centrally on backboard (12)); a rim secured to the upper portion; and a net secured to the rim (and a hoop component (14) from which a net (16) is suspended (Pelfrey, col 2, lines 58-60).
Therefore, 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 basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the mentioned structural components of Raba et al. to appreciate the limitations and provide an enhanced basketball hoop assembly.
However, the modified Pelfrey fails to teach a pair of wheels rotatably secured to a bottom of the base portion. Bibbens teaches this as follows: a pair of wheels rotatably secured to a bottom of the base portion [0017].
Therefore, 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 modified basketball hoop assembly of Pelfrey with the wheels of Bibbens to have greater transportability capabilities for the assembly (Bibbens, [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to RIA SHARMA whose telephone number (571) 345-5811. The
examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 5pm.
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, vis it:
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.
/R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights