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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/11/2024 was/were considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 9’s fastening means for securing the net to a surface corresponding to tie- downs, straps, peg apertures per specification [0009] and [0034].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by InmotionAir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AzqPFJR-qc.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 11, InmotionAir discloses an inflatable sports net comprising the limitations thereof. See annotated image for specific limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
814
1329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over InmotionAir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AzqPFJR-qc.
Regarding claim 3, InmotionAir teaches at least one valve via which the respective beams are inflatable (inherent). However, it does not teach that there is only a singular valve. One of ordinary skill in the art would only use a singular valve in order to reduce manufacturing complexity. Thus, 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 valve in InmotionAir by utilizing a singular valve in order to reduce manufacturing complexity.
Regarding claim 4, InmotionAir does not teach that the valve comprises an inflatable boat air valve. Official notice is being taken that such valves are common and well known prior to the filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, 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 valve in InmotionAir by utilizing a common and well-known valve for inflatable structures in order to inflate the structure.
Regarding claim 5, InmotionAir does not teach that the valve is arranged externally to the half-dome structure opposite the archway beam so that said valve is not impactable by a ball when the net is in use. Applicant has not disclosed that having the valve located there solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that it prevents impact by a ball. It appears that InmotionAir would perform equally well with the valve located as claimed by applicant. Thus, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the location of the valve in InmotionAir by utilizing the location as claimed for the purpose of preventing impact from balls. See, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 8, InmotionAir further discloses that the foraminous mesh comprises a material with foramina configured according to a ball size the net is to arrest. However, it does not teach that the material is a synthetic polymer. Official notice is being taken that nylon is a well-known and conventional synthetic polymer used in nets. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the material taught by InmotionAir by utilizing nylon in order to use well-known and conventional materials.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over InmotionAir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AzqPFJR-qc and further in view of Visser US 20040031208.
Regarding claim 6, InmotionAir does not teach that the beams are manufactured from a synthetic polymer material such as nylon, polyester and/or marine grade polyvinyl chloride, with laminated, heat pressed seams for strength.
Visser teaches inflatable structures manufactured from a synthetic polymer material such as nylon, polyester and/or marine grade polyvinyl chloride, with laminated, heat pressed seams for strength ([0005]) are conventional. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the structure of InmotionAir by utilizing synthetic polymers laminated and heat pressed as such are conventional manufacturing techniques.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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 O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights