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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are not properly executed in an accurate manner that graphically communicates the invention of the applicant. The quality of the drawings to not graphically provide a full comprehension of the claimed invention. The drawing scale is not large enough to show claimed mechanism i.e. over-crowding. Additionally, the lines are not uniformly thick and well defined, clean, durable and black (poor line quality). Figures 1A-C, 2A-2C and 5. 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 5-6, 12 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “the frame” should be amended to read “the collapsible frame”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. the frame” should be amended to read “the collapsible frame”.
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 (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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shockley (3,895,809).
Claim 1, Shockley discloses a portable apparatus for returning a ball, the apparatus comprising:
a collapsible frame (the combination of adjustable stand 30 and supports 34; figure 2);
an open portion (the broadest reasonable interpretation of “open portion” could include circular hoop 22 formed of interlocking portions) connected to a first end of the collapsible frame (first ends of supports 34);
a closed portion (where reflector plate 28 is positioned) connected to a second end of the collapsible frame (second end is connected to the end of adjustable stand 30), the closed portion being at least partially closed with a backing material (28 can be formed of solid fabric or canvas); and
a net (net 24) connected to the open portion and the closed portion such that a netted enclosure is formed between the open portion and the closed portion (figure 2).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shockley (3,895,809) in view of Lay (8,172,703).
Claim 2, Shockley shows the collapsible frame comprises:
a plurality of frame posts (30 and 34);
at least one frame connector (anchor bolts or alternatively structure similar to the inter-locking members 40 and 42), wherein the at least one frame connector connects two or more of the plurality of frame posts together. Shockley discloses the claimed device with the exception of the a cable running through the plurality of frame posts. However, as disclosed by Lay (figure 1A; column 3, lines 27-33) it is known in the art to include an elastic member 23 running through the frame posts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included such a cord for Shockley’s frame structure given that Lay teaches such an arrangement allows for easy assembly and disassembly of the frame structure.
Claim 3, Shockley alone and as modified in view of Lay further shows that the two or more of the plurality of frame posts are capable of being rotatable relative to the at least one frame connector to which they are connected.
Claim 4, Shockley alone and as modified in view of Lay further shows the collapsible frame is capable of being collapsed by raising one of the plurality of frame posts.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shockley (3,895,809).
Claim 9, Shockey alone or as modified in view of Lay provide anchor for stability of the device. However, neither reference expressly disclose the inclusion of weights for stabilization of the device. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of weighted base are old and well known and obvious to incorporate into the Shockley structure because it aids in securely holding and stabilizing the support structure.
Claims 10, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doyle (5,018,731).
Claim 10, Doyle discloses a portable apparatus for returning a ball comprising:
an open portion (the broadest reasonable interpretation of “open portion” could include circular hoop 40; figure 1);
an inner front mount (circular hoop 26) connected to the open portion (frame collar 44), wherein the inner front mount (26) and the open portion (44) are connected by at least one mount cord (draw cord 46);
a web (the broadest reasonable interpretation of “web” would include Doyle’s safety net 38 which can be formed of nylon or any other suitable material or combinations thereof may be used; the safety net 38 is supported in stretchable affixment between the circular net opening and connecting frame 26 and the safety net attachment frame 40; figure 1) connected to the inner front mount (40);
an outer front mount (40) connected to the web (38) such that the web extends between the inner front mount (26) and the outer front mount (40);
a net (net 12 formed of mesh material 62; figure 1) connected to the open portion;
a closed portion (impact disk 54) connected to the net (12) such that a netted enclosure is formed between the open portion (44) and the closed portion (54), wherein the closed portion is at least partially closed with backing material (includes a wear resistant impact target material); and
a collapsible frame (frame assembly 34 formed of the combination of projecting foot 20 of an L-shaped frame member 22 and cross support members 30: Note: the frame disclosed by Doyle is capable of being collapsible) connected to the closed portion (figure 1).
Claim 15, Doyle further shows that the two or more of the plurality of frame posts are capable of being rotatable relative to the at least one frame connector to which they are connected.
Claim 16, Doyle further shows the collapsible frame is capable of being collapsed by raising one of the plurality of frame posts.
Claims 11, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle (5,018,731).
Claim 11, Doyle does not expressly disclose the use of “mount line ribbons” instead of the typical structure of the netting or webbing which is the horizontal bars run across the net, while the vertical bars run up and down and the individual sections of netting cable or rope runs between knots or joints in a net. It is noted that the use of a plurality of “mount line ribbons” has been given no criticality by the applicant. Lacking any criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used any known means for creating or forming the framework of the mesh pattern including “mount line ribbons” in order to ensure consistent spacing between the horizontal bars (i.e. horizontal cords of the netting or webbing). Replacing the vertical bars and the knots or joints with “mount line ribbons” on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice, therefore held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select.
Claim 18, Doyle uses frames 30 to stabilize the device. Doyle discloses the claimed device with the exception of using weights for stabilization the device. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of weighted base are old and well known and obvious to incorporate into the Doyle structure because it aids in securely holding and stabilizing the support structure.
Claim 20, Doyle discloses the claimed device with the exception of a dolly connected to the closed mount and configured to move the frame when the frame is collapsed. The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of dollies are old and well known and obvious to incorporate into the Doyle structure because it aids in transporting the device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle (5,018,731) in view of Lay (8,172,703).
Claim 14, Doyle shows the collapsible frame comprises:
a plurality of frame posts (30 and 34);
at least one frame connector (interconnected support frame assembly 34 using mechanical means for joining the various segments together; column 3, lines 65-68 and column 4, lines 1-3), wherein the at least one frame connector connects two or more of the plurality of frame posts together. Doyle discloses the claimed device with the exception of the a cable running through the plurality of frame posts. However, as disclosed by Lay (figure 1A; column 3, lines 27-33) it is known in the art to include an elastic member 23 running through the frame posts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included such a cord for Doyle’s frame structure given that Lay teaches such an arrangement allows for easy assembly and disassembly of the frame structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 12-13, 17, 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Michaelson et al (8,282,509); Steen (4,703,931): Hammons (8,668,603).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thurs, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
09 June 2026
Prosecution Insights