DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Species 3 in the reply filed on 16 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 October 2024 was filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is hereby considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 2, “on opposite sides” should be deleted (since it superfluous).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawahara (WO 2008129972 A1 - see attached copy and translation).
In reference to claim 1
Kawahara discloses:
A player wearable game apparatus (i.e., supporter 1 - see Figure 1)(note: the term(s) player and/or game do not structurally limit the claimed invention) comprising:
an elastic panel (i.e., one of net-shaped members 2) configured to exhibit a trampoline effect when struck by a ball (note: the recitation exhibit a trampoline effect when struck by a ball is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus, and the apparatus of the applied prior art is capable of performing the claimed use - see MPEP 2103(I)(C) and/or FP 7.37.09 in MPEP 707.07(f); each net-shaped member 2 is formed of a stretchable material and, thus, is capable of being used in the claimed manner); and
at least one arm-engaging component (i.e., band-shaped uniting members 3) on opposite sides of said elastic panel configured to engage at least two forearms of a player (note: the recitation configured to engage at least two forearms of a player is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus, and the apparatus of the applied prior art is capable of performing the claimed use - see MPEP 2103(I)(C) and/or FP 7.37.09 in MPEP 707.07(f)).
In reference to claim 2
Kawahara discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 1, wherein said elastic panel (2) is formed of a stretchable material (see Abstract) configured to be stretched by the arms of the player to exhibit different trampoline effects when struck by a ball based on an the amount that the panel is stretched (note: the recitation configured to be stretched by the arms of the player to exhibit different trampoline effects when struck by a ball based on the amount that the panel is stretched is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus, and the apparatus of the applied prior art is capable of performing the claimed use - see MPEP 2103(I)(C) and/or FP 7.37.09 in MPEP 707.07(f); each net-shaped member 2 is formed of a stretchable material and, thus, is capable of being used in the claimed manner).
In reference to claim 3
Kawahara discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 1, wherein said panel (2) is formed of netting (see Abstract).
Claims 1-3 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahler (US 2,328,385).
In reference to claim 1
Mahler discloses:
A player wearable game apparatus (i.e., girdle)(note: the term(s) player and/or game do not structurally limit the claimed invention) comprising:
an elastic panel (i.e., the assembly of panels 1 and 2, which are made from power net fabric (elastic) - see page 2, left column, lines 22-35) configured to exhibit a trampoline effect when struck by a ball (note: the recitation exhibit a trampoline effect when struck by a ball is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus, and the apparatus of the applied prior art is capable of performing the claimed use - see MPEP 2103(I)(C) and/or FP 7.37.09 in MPEP 707.07(f); the panels 1 and 2 are formed of a stretchable material and, thus, are capable of being used in the claimed manner); and
at least one arm-engaging component (i.e., bones B) on opposite sides (see Figure 3) of said elastic panel configured to engage at least two forearms of a player (note: the recitation configured to engage at least two forearms of a player is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus, and the apparatus of the applied prior art is capable of performing the claimed use - see MPEP 2103(I)(C) and/or FP 7.37.09 in MPEP 707.07(f)).
In reference to claim 2
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 1, wherein said elastic panel (1 & 2) is formed of a stretchable material (i.e., power net fabric, which is elastic - see page 2, left column, lines 22-35) configured to be stretched by the arms of the player to exhibit different trampoline effects when struck by a ball based on an the amount that the panel is stretched (note: the recitation configured to be stretched by the arms of the player to exhibit different trampoline effects when struck by a ball based on the amount that the panel is stretched is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus, and the apparatus of the applied prior art is capable of performing the claimed use - see MPEP 2103(I)(C) and/or FP 7.37.09 in MPEP 707.07(f); the panels 1 and 2 are formed of a stretchable material and, thus, are capable of being used in the claimed manner).
In reference to claim 3
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 1, wherein said panel is formed of netting (i.e., power net fabric - see page 2, left column, lines 22-35).
In reference to claim 12
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 1, wherein: said elastic panel (1 & 2) is formed as a tubular body sized to receive at least the forearms of the player (note: the girdle is capable of receiving two forearms).
In reference to claim 13
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 12, wherein said at least one arm-engaging component (B) on opposite sides includes an elongated strip (see Figure 2 and page 1, right column, lines stating “The usual flexible bone insert B is located in a pock which is provided by a strip of fabric 19”) that is relatively more rigid (due to being substantially thicker) than said elastic panel.
In reference to claim 14
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 13, wherein said elastic panel (1 & 2) is formed of a stretchable material (i.e., power net fabric, which is elastic - see page 2, left column, lines 22-35) configured to be stretched by arms of the player to exhibit different trampoline effects when struck by a ball based on an amount that the panel is stretched (note: the recitation configured to be stretched by the arms of the player to exhibit different trampoline effects when struck by a ball based on the amount that the panel is stretched is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus, and the apparatus of the applied prior art is capable of performing the claimed use - see MPEP 2103(I)(C) and/or FP 7.37.09 in MPEP 707.07(f); the panels 1 and 2 are formed of a stretchable material and, thus, are capable of being used in the claimed manner).
In reference to claim 15
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 14, wherein said panel (1 & 2) is formed of netting (i.e., power net fabric - see page 2, left column, lines 22-35).
In reference to claim 16
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 15, wherein each strip (B) has a width sufficient to engage a side of the arms (note: the recitation a width sufficient to engage a side of the arms does not imbue a particular structural limitation - a strip of any width can engage a side of an arm) of the player and a length (see Figure 2) sufficient to extend at least along most of the length of the forearms of the player (note: there is no absolute measure for length of the forearms of the players).
In reference to claim 17
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 16, wherein each strip (B) is bendable, to adjust to a contour of the arms of the player.
In reference to claim 18
Mahler discloses:
The game apparatus of claim 17, wherein each strip (B) is disposed on an inside (see Figures 2 and 3) of the tubular body (1 & 2) for direct contact with the arms of the player.
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Thompson (US 8,517,794) and Gibbons (US 11,445,773) each disclose a garment having a netting material.
All other cited references disclose an apparatus for use in a rebound game.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights