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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “backboard’s frame” (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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.
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 1-2, 5-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19-24 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. With respect to claim 1, further clarification is require what is applicant consider “a pair of ceiling mounted brackets are configured to rotate the backboard structure from a first ceiling mounted bracket position at or near parallel to the ceiling to a second ceiling mounted bracket position at or near orthogonal to the ceiling”, According to the original disclosure the “ceiling brackets” (e.g., 202), in at least Figs. 2 and 3, are only designed to attached the backboard to the ceiling. The rotational of the backboard from “a first position” to “a second position”, according to the original disclosure, is via ta mounted bracket mechanism (302).
Same issues with respect to independent claim 14, which recites similar limitations.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, 16-17, and 19-24, they are rejected based upon their dependency to respective independent claims 1 and 14.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10,12, 14, 16, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh US 2,831,689 (“Marsh”) in view of Elpers et al US 11,000,747 (“Elpers”) and Davis et al US 5,902,197 (“Davis”).
As per claim 1, Marsh discloses a basketball apparatus (Figs. 1-10, 1:10-4:32) comprising:
a backboard structure (backboard 2)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:13-20);
a pair of ceiling mounted brackets, wherein each of the ceiling mounted brackets: are attached to a back of the backboard structure (brackets 22 attached to the back of backboard 2)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:38-53), are configured to rotate the backboard structure from a first ceiling mounted bracket position at or near parallel to the ceiling to a second ceiling mounted bracket position at or near orthogonal to the ceiling (to the best of his understanding the examiner construed the attachment mechanism, such as adjustable fixtures 21 as well as hinge connectors 13/20, to rotate the backboard from a first position (e.g., raised position in dotted line) to a second position (play position) ,attached to brackets 22 as such) (Figs. 1 and 2; note 3:1-26 as the manner to lower and raise the backboard); and a hoop attached to a front of the backboard structure (basket 1)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:12-19) via a hoop bracket (Figs. 1 and 2); a hoop bracket back-plate configured to secure the hoop to the front of the backboard structure (Figs. 1 and 2); and a ceiling mounted bracket mechanism configured to engage rotation of the backboard structure between the first ceiling mounted bracket position and the second ceiling mounted bracket position, and a ceiling mounted bracket support configured to resist bending or flexing of the ceiling mounted bracket (construed as adjustable fixtures 21 as well as hinge connectors 13/20 to rotate the backboard from a first position (e.g., raised position in dotted line) to a second position (play position)(Figs. 1 and 2; note 3:1-26 as the manner to lower and raise the backboard).
Marsh is not specific regarding wherein the hoop bracket is configured to rotate the hoop from a first hoop bracket position at or near parallel to the backboard to a second hoop bracket position at or near orthogonal to the backboard, wherein the hoop bracket comprises a release handle situated within the hoop and the hoop bracket, the release handle configured to engage rotation of the hoop from the first hoop bracket position to the second hoop bracket position and a hoop alignment element configured to align the hoop into specified stopping points when the hoop rotates between the first hoop bracket position and the second hoop bracket position.
With respect to the rotation of the hoop via the hoop bracket, Elpers discloses a hoop bracket 130 attached to a rim 140 at a front of a backboard assembly 20 (Figs. 1-4; 6:11-52); the hoop/rim 140 is positioned between a first position (e.g., Figs. 5-7) and a second position (Figs. 4 and 8), via a locking button 174, to be aligned with folded position opening 152 (related to the “first hoop position at near/parallel to backboard 20”) and an alignment playing position opening 154 (related to “a second hoop position orthogonal to the backboard”); such openings 152 and 154 are construed the “hoop alignment means”(Figs. 4-6; 7:6-59). Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s hoop bracket is configured to rotate the hoop from a first hoop bracket position at or near parallel to the backboard to a second hoop bracket position at or near orthogonal to the backboard, wherein the hoop bracket comprises a release means situated within the hoop and the hoop bracket, the release means configured to engage rotation of the hoop from the first hoop bracket position to the second hoop bracket position and a hoop alignment element configured to align the hoop into specified stopping points when the hoop rotates between the first hoop bracket position and the second hoop bracket position for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical arrangement configure to rotate the hoop from a collapse/storage position to a use position. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Marsh to allow his basketball backboard to rotate between a use/play position and collapsed/stored position. Such rotational of the hoop is much desired within Marsh to allow further collapsed of the basketball goal to insure that the basketball goal is stored/folded in the most compact and shield manner.
Elpers is not specific regarding the use of hoop bracket comprises a release handle.
However, the use of a hoop bracket comprises a release handle to facilitate rotation of a hoop, is well known in the art, as taught by Davis (knobs 54, (i.e., a release handle) is/are configure to release a hoop 60 from a first position (Fig. 9) to a second position (Fig. 8); note also 5:12-45). Therefore, 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 to form Marsh- Elpers’s hoop bracket comprises a release handle for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical means, such as “a handle” to facilitate the movement of the hoop between the first and second position in a safe and control manner.
As per claim 2, with respect to further comprising a net, wherein the net is attached to the hoop, note Marsh’s Fig .1 (the examiner takes the position that basket 1, inherently include a net attached thereto).
As per claim 6, with respect to wherein the hoop bracket is further comprised of a two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop bracket to be positioned in a first hoop bracket position and a second hoop bracket, note Figs. 5-6 and 7:5-59 of Elpers regarding the use of folding springs 170 and locking button 174 to position the rim/hoop either in a fold/first position (e.g., Fig. 5) and play/orthogonal position (Fig. 4); note also Davis’s Figs. 8 and 9 (5:12-45) as the hoop 60 moves between the two positions. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the hoop bracket is further comprised of a two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop bracket to be positioned in a first hoop bracket position and a second hoop bracket for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement to insure the hoop is safe and secure while in either positions.
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein the two-part stop of the hoop bracket maintains the hoop in either; the first hoop bracket position allowing for it to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position allowing for it rest securely at a 90 degree to the backboard structure, note Figs. 5-6 and 7:5-59 of Elpers regarding the use of folding springs 170 and locking button 174 to position the rim/hoop either in a fold/first position (e.g., Fig. 5) and play/orthogonal position (Fig. 4); note also Davis’s Figs. 8 and 9 (5:12-45) as the hoop 60 moves between the two positions. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the two-part stop of the hoop bracket maintains the hoop in either; the first hoop bracket position allowing for it to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position allowing for it rest securely at a 90 degree to the backboard structure for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6.
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the backboard structure is comprises a frame, wherein the frame is configured to cover any specified edges of the backboard structure for protection, note Elpers’ Figs. 1-3 and 14 in conjunction to 4:62-5:4. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the backboard structure is comprises a frame, wherein the frame is configured to cover any specified edges of the backboard structure for protection for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known means to cover and protect the backboard from harm yet provide protection to the ball and/or a user during a basketball play.
As per claims 9-10, with respect to wherein the frame is configured to reduce impact forces (claim 9), and wherein the backboard structure is comprised of an alternative material with shock-absorbing elements, such that the alternative material is integrated into the backboard structure to lessen impact forces (claim 10), such limitations are construed as the use of “a polycarbonate material” to form the backboard, according to applicant’s original disclosure in at least paragraph [0055] “ Polycarbonate is a strong, durable, and impact-resistant material, making it suitable for use in the backboard structure 102, as it may be subjected to the impact of a basketball.”. In that regard, Elpers discloses the use of polycarbonate in forming his backboard assembly (4:62-5:4). Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the frame is configured to reduce impact forces and wherein the backboard structure is comprised of an alternative material with shock-absorbing elements, such that the alternative material is integrated into the backboard structure to lessen impact forces for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Elpers’s suggestions to form the backboard to include such properties to reduce impact as well as shock absorbing to insure the goal assembly is reliable and durable enough to allow the play of basketball in a safe manner.
As per claim 12, with respect to wherein a diameter of the hoop is of a standard basketball hoop of 18 inches and is configured to accommodate a regulation- size basketball, note Marsh’s Figs. 1 and 2 regarding basket 1 (the examiner takes the position that Marsh’s basket is inherently configure to accommodates regular size basketballs).
As per claim 14, Marsh discloses a basketball apparatus (Figs. 1-10, 1:10-4:32), comprising: a backboard structure (backboard 2)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:13-20); a pair of ceiling mounted brackets attached to a back of the backboard structure (brackets 22 attached to the back of backboard 2)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:38-53), the ceiling mounted brackets configured to rotate the backboard structure from a first ceiling mounted bracket position at or near parallel to the ceiling to a second ceiling mounted bracket position at or near orthogonal to the ceiling (to the best of his understanding the examiner construed the attachment mechanism, such as adjustable fixtures 21 as well as hinge connectors 13/20, to rotate the backboard from a first position (e.g., raised position in dotted line) to a second position (play position), attached to brackets 22, as such)(Figs. 1 and 2; note 3:1-26 as the manner to lower and raise the backboard); a hoop attached to a front of the backboard structure via a hoop bracket (basket 1)(Figs. 1 and 2; 2:12-19); and a net attached to the hoop, the net comprising a variety of woven or knitted materials (the examiner takes the position that basket 1, inherently include a net attached thereto); a hoop bracket back-plate configured to secure the hoop to the front of the backboard structure(Figs. 1 and 2); and a ceiling mounted bracket mechanism configured to engage rotation of the backboard structure between the first ceiling mounted bracket position and the second ceiling mounted bracket position, and a ceiling mounted bracket support configured to resist bending or flexing of the ceiling mounted bracket (construed as adjustable fixtures 21 as well as hinge connectors 13/20 to rotate the backboard from a first position (e.g., raised position in dotted line) to a second position (play position)(Figs. 1 and 2; note 3:1-26 as the manner to lower and raise the backboard). Marsh is not specific regarding the hoop bracket configured to rotate the hoop from a first hoop bracket position at or near parallel to the backboard to a second hoop bracket position at or near orthogonal to the backboard wherein the hoop bracket comprises a release handle situated within the hoop and the hoop bracket, the release handle configured to engage rotation of the hoop from the first hoop bracket position to the second hoop bracket position and a hoop alignment element configured to align the hoop into specified stopping points when the hoop rotates between the first hoop bracket position and the second hoop bracket position. However, Elpers discloses a mounting bracket 120 attached to rim 140 at a front of a backboard assembly 20 (Figs. 1-4; 6:11-52); the hoop/rim 140 is positioned between a first position (e.g., Figs. 5-7) and a second position (Figs. 4 and 8), via a locking button 174, to be aligned with folded position opening 152 (related to the “first hoop position at near/parallel to backboard 20”) and an alignment playing position opening 154 (related to “a second hoop position orthogonal to the backboard”); such openings 152 and 154 are construed the “hoop alignment means”(Figs. 4-6; 7:6-59); and Davis discloses knobs 54, (i.e., a release handle) is/are configure to release a hoop 60 from a first position (Fig. 9) to a second position (Fig. 8); note also 5:12-45). Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s hoop bracket configured to rotate the hoop from a first hoop bracket position at or near parallel to the backboard to a second hoop bracket position at or near orthogonal to the backboard wherein the hoop bracket comprises a release handle situated within the hoop and the hoop bracket, the release handle configured to engage rotation of the hoop from the first hoop bracket position to the second hoop bracket position and a hoop alignment element configured to align the hoop into specified stopping points when the hoop rotates between the first hoop bracket position and the second hoop bracket position for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 16, with respect to wherein the hoop bracket further comprises a two-part stop, the two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop in either the first hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely at a 90- degree angle to the backboard structure, note Figs. 5-6 and 7:5-59 of Elpers regarding the use of folding springs 170 and locking button 174 to position the rim either in a fold/first position (e.g., Fig. 5) and play/orthogonal position (Fig. 4); note also Davis’s Figs. 8 and 9 (5:12-45) as the hoop 60 moves between the two positions. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the hoop bracket further comprises a two-part stop, the two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop in either the first hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely at a 90- degree angle to the backboard structure for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 6 and 7.
As per claim 19, with respect to wherein the hoop is configured to accommodate a regulation-size basketball, note Marsh’s Figs. 1 and 2 regarding basket 1 (the examiner takes the position that Marsh’s basket is inherently configure to accommodates regular size basketballs).
As per claim 20, with respect to wherein the release handle is enclosed between the hoop bracket and the hoop, wherein the hoop alignment element works in conjunction with the release handle to guide the hoop into the specified stopping points when the release handle is engaged, and wherein the hoop is formed in a circular shape and is comprised of steel tubing, note Davis’s Figs. 8 and 9 (5:12-45) regarding the position of knobs 54 in relation to the hoop bracket and the hoop; note Elpers’s Figs. 4-6 (7:6-59) as the alignment means (openings 152 and 154). Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the release handle is enclosed between the hoop bracket and the hoop, wherein the hoop alignment element works in conjunction with the release handle to guide the hoop into the specified stopping points when the release handle is engaged, and wherein the hoop is formed in a circular shape and is comprised of steel tubing for similar reasons discussed above with respect to at least claims 1, 6 and 7, i.e., as known mechanical means, in the form of “a handle” to facilitate the movement of the hoop between the first and second positions and to insure the hoop is firmly secure at either position.
As per claim 21, with respect to wherein the hoop bracket further comprises a two-part stop, the two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop in either the first hoop bracket position, allowing the hoop to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position, allowing the hoop to rest securely at a 90-degree angle to the backboard structure, note Figs. 5-6 and 7:5-59 of Elpers regarding the use of folding springs 170 and locking button 174 to position the rim either in a fold/first position (e.g., Fig. 5) and play/orthogonal position (Fig. 4); note also Davis’s Figs. 8 and 9 (5:12-45) as the hoop 60 moves between the two positions. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh wherein the hoop bracket further comprises a two-part stop, the two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop in either the first hoop bracket position, allowing the hoop to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position, allowing the hoop to rest securely at a 90-degree angle to the backboard structure for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 6 and 7.
As per claims 22-23, with respect to wherein the backboard structure is constructed in a fan-shape and is comprised of a polycarbonate material, and wherein the polycarbonate material is one of transparent or translucent allowing visibility through the backboard structure (claim 22) and , wherein the backboard structure comprises a frame configured to cover specified edges of the backboard structure to decrease impact forces, and wherein the backboard structure is comprised of a shock-absorbing material integrated into the backboard structure to lessen impact forces (claim 23), Elpers discloses the use of a polycarbonate material in forming his backboard assembly (4:62-5:4). As mentioned above (e.g., claims 9 and 10) the use of polycarbonate material is related to the impact force properties of the backboard, according to applicant’s original disclosure. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the backboard structure is constructed in a fan-shape and is comprised of a polycarbonate material, and wherein the polycarbonate material is one of transparent or translucent allowing visibility through the backboard structure and wherein the backboard structure comprises a frame configured to cover specified edges of the backboard structure to decrease impact forces, and wherein the backboard structure is comprised of a shock-absorbing material integrated into the backboard structure to lessen impact forces for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 9 and 10.
As per claim 24, with respect to wherein the hoop bracket further comprises a two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop in either the first hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely at a 90-degree angle to the backboard structure, note Figs. 5-6 and 7:5-59 of Elpers regarding the use of folding springs 170 and locking button 174 to position the rim either in a fold/first position (e.g., Fig. 5) and play/orthogonal position (Fig. 4); note also Davis’s Figs. 8 and 9 (5:12-45) as the hoop 60 moves between the two positions. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh’s wherein the hoop bracket further comprises a two-part stop configured to maintain the hoop in either the first hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely parallel to the backboard structure, or the second hoop bracket position, allowing it to rest securely at a 90-degree angle to the backboard structure for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 6 and 7; with respect to and wherein the backboard structure comprises a frame configured to cover specified edges of the backboard structure for protection, note Elpers’ Figs. 1-3 and 14 in conjunction to 4:62-5:4. Therefore, 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 to form Marsh and wherein the backboard structure comprises a frame configured to cover specified edges of the backboard structure for protection for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art to Marsh, Elpers and Davis, also consider Mauro US 12,502,588, alone or in combination is not specific nor render it obvious to form a basketball apparatus that among other thing includes “wherein each of the ceiling mounted brackets comprises a magnet housing on the ceiling mounted bracket, and a magnet disposed within the magnet housing, wherein the magnet is configured to magnetically engage a top part of the ceiling mounted bracket to maintain the backboard structure in the second ceiling mounted bracket position at or near orthogonal to the ceiling”, as require by claim 5.
The closest prior art to Marsh, Elpers and Davis, also consider Mauro US 12,502,588, alone or in combination is not specific nor render it obvious to form a basketball apparatus that among other thing includes, “wherein each of the ceiling mounted brackets a magnet housing on the ceiling mounted bracket and a magnet disposed within the magnet housing, wherein the magnet is configured to magnetically engage a top part of the ceiling mounted bracket to maintain the backboard structure in the second ceiling mounted bracket position at or near orthogonal to the ceiling” as require by claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 19-24 have been considered but are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument and are partially not persuasive.
With respect to the Elpers’ reference, the examiner maintains his position that Elpers teach and discloses a hoop bracket that is configured to rotate the hoop from a first hoop bracket position at or near parallel to the backboard to a second hoop bracket position at or near orthogonal to the backboard. Note at least Fig. 5 as reproduce hereinafter as bracket 130, is parallel to the backboard (21; e.g., Fig. 3) in the first parallel position.
PNG
media_image1.png
1018
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, note Fig. 4 as hoop bracket is configured to rotate the hoop to a second hoop bracket position at or near orthogonal to the backboard
PNG
media_image2.png
614
1002
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, contradicting to applicant’s assertions Elpers discloses such limitations “ a hoop bracket that is configured to rotate the hoop from a first hoop bracket position at or near parallel to the backboard to a second hoop bracket position at or near orthogonal to the backboard”
With respect to the “release handle”, applicant’s arguments are moot as such new limitations are taught by the reference to Davis as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 8/26/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights