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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,899 (“ ‘899 “). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘899 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “an apparatus comprising: a first base member; a second base member; a first sliding connector slidable along the first base member; a second sliding connector slidable along the second base member; a first pivotable connector coupled to the first base member; a second pivotable connector coupled to the second base member; a first side support pivotably coupled to the first pivotable connector; a second side support pivotably coupled to the second pivotable connector; one or more cross-members extending between at least one of (a) the first pivotable connector and the second sliding connector or (b) the second pivotable connector and the first sliding connector; a first brace (a) pivotably coupled to the first side support and (b) pivotably coupled to the first sliding connector; and a second brace (a) pivotably coupled to the second side and (b) pivotably coupled to the second sliding connector.” Every limitations in the above claim 1 is recited in claim 1 of ‘899, and thus claim 1 anticipated by claim 1 of ‘899.
Claim 16 recite similar limitations as claim 3 of the ‘899.
Claims 18-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,899 (“ ’899 “) in view of Ketchum US 4,553,751 (“Ketchum”). Claim 6 of ‘899 recites all the limitations of claims 18 and 19, namely “an apparatus comprising: a base frame assembly including: a first base member; and a second base member; an upper frame assembly including: a first side support; a second side support; a first hinge coupled to an upper end of the first side support; a second hinge coupled to an upper end of the second side support; a lateral support extending between the first hinge and the second hinge, the lateral support including a third hinge positioned proximate a center thereof; a first connector pivotably coupling the first side support with the first base member; a second connector pivotably coupling the second side support with the second base member;; a first brace extending between the first side support and the first base member; a second brace extending between the second side support and the second base member; and one or more cross-members extending between the first base member and the second base member” except “a net; and a plurality of net connectors extending between (a) the net and (b) the first hinge, the second hinge, the first connector, and the second connector”.
However, in a similar field of apparatuses, Ketchum discloses a net; and a plurality of net connectors extending between (a) the net and (b) a first hinge, a second hinge, a first connector, and a second connector (screen 13 connected to front frame 12, with a plurality of net connectors; between hinges (such as pivot pins 29 and/ 30) and connectors to upper rails 26 to rear frame 11)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:44-49; 2:24-55 and 3:4+). 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 the ‘899 with a net; and a plurality of net connectors extending between (a) the net and (b) the first hinge, the second hinge, the first connector, and the second connector for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement to facilitate the use of the apparatus as a ball rebounder via the net means.
Claim 15 of ‘899 recites all the limitations of claim 20, namely “an apparatus comprising: a base frame assembly; an upper frame assembly pivotably coupled to the base frame assembly; a sliding connector slidable along a portion of the base frame assembly; and a brace pivotably coupled to the upper frame assembly and the sliding connector” except “the upper frame assembly configured to support a net”.
However, Ketchum discloses an upper frame assembly configured to support a net (screen 13 connected to front frame 12, with a plurality of net connectors; between hinges (such as pivot pins 29 and/ 30) and connectors to upper rails 26 to rear frame 11)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:44-49; 2:24-55 and 3:4+). 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’ 899 with the upper frame assembly configured to support a net for similar reasons discussed above.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/4/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ketchum US 4,553,751 (“Ketchum”).
As per claim 20, Ketchum discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2; 1:44-3:25) comprising: a base frame assembly (support base 10)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:44-63); an upper frame assembly pivotably coupled to the base frame assembly, the upper frame assembly configured to support a net (construed as rear frame 11-front frame 12 supporting screen 13)(Fig. 1; 1:44-49; 2:24+; 2:56+ and 3:4+); a sliding connector slidable along a portion of the base frame assembly (slider 20 slides along rail 14of base frame 10)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:64-215); and a brace pivotably coupled to the upper frame assembly and the sliding connector (a rod 23 coupled to upper frame 11/12 at pivot pin 30 and to slider 20)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:67-2:15 and 2:44-49).
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.
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) 1-5, 9, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketchum in view of Piras et al US 6,935,971 (“Piras”) and Tanabe et al US 2012/0248047 (“Tanabe”).
As per claim 1, Ketchum discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2; 1:44-3:25) comprising: a first base member (rail 14)(Figs. 1 and 2); a second base member (rail 14’)(Fig. 1; 1:44-68); a first sliding connector slidable along the first base member (slider 20 slides upon rail 14)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:64-2:15); a second sliding connector slidable along the second base member (slider 20’ slides upon rail 14’)(Fig. 1; 2:13+); a first pivotable connector coupled (construed as pivot pin 30)(Fig. 1; 2:44-46); a second pivotable connector coupled (construed as similar pin coupled thereto; not show, 2:46-49); a first side support pivotably coupled to the first pivotable connector (construed as rail 26 connected with pivot 30)(Fig. 1; 2: 24:-49); a second side support pivotably coupled to the second pivotable connector (construed as rail 26’ connected with the second pivot not shown (2:24-49); a first brace (a) pivotably coupled to the first side support and (b) pivotably coupled to the first sliding connector (a rod 23 pivotally connected first side support 26 at pivot 30 and pivotally connected to slider 20)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:64-2:15 and 2:44+); and a second brace (a) pivotably coupled to the second side and (b) pivotably coupled to the second sliding connector(a rod 23’ pivotally connected second side support 26’ at pivot (not shown) and pivotally connected to slider 20’)(Fig. 1; 1:64-2:15 and 2:44+).
Ketchum is not specific regarding the first pivotable connector coupled to the first base member and the second pivotable connector coupled to the second base member.
Ketchum is not specific regarding one or more cross-members extending between at least one of (a) the first pivotable connector and the second sliding connector or (b) the second pivotable connector and the first sliding connector.
With respect to the pivoting means, in a similar field of apparatuses, Piras discloses a first pivotable connector coupled to a first base member and a second pivotable connector coupled to a second base member (base members, ground bars 11, each includes a respective hinge 13) (Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 3:10-24). 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 Ketchum’s first pivotable connector coupled to the first base member and the second pivotable connector coupled to the second base member for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical connections to facilitate the connection therebetween the base members and the supports allowing optimal positioning therebetween. Such pivotal connection would have enhanced the positioning of the rebounder of Ketchum in any desirable inclination (e.g., Piras’ 2:4+).
With respect to the crossbars means, in a similar field of apparatuses, Tanabe discloses one or more cross-members extending between at least one of (a) the first pivotable connector and the second sliding connector or (b) the second pivotable connector and the first sliding connector (such as a crossbar 122 pivotally connected to a leg 106 and to a slidable bracket 118; a crossbar 124 pivotally connected to a leg 110 and to a slidable bracket 114)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0021]-[0029]). 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 Ketchum’s with one or more cross-members extending between at least one of (a) the first pivotable connector and the second sliding connector or (b) the second pivotable connector and the first sliding connector for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement that facilitate collapsible of the apparatus yet provide enhance securement while the apparatus is in a use condition. Such crossbars means would have been much desired within Ketchum to facilitate the rebounder apparatus in a collapsed position for storage and/or transportation purposes yet insure that the rebounder apparatus is sturdy enough during use.
As per claim 2, with respect to wherein the first pivotable connector and the second pivotable connector are positioned at or proximate ends of the first base member and the second base member, note Piras’s Figs. 1 and 3a-3c (3:10+) regarding the position of hinges 13 with respect to ground bars 11. 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 Ketchum’s wherein the first pivotable connector and the second pivotable connector are positioned at or proximate ends of the first base member and the second base member for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 3, with respect to wherein the first pivotable connector and the second pivotable connector are positioned at or proximate lower ends of the first side support and the second side support, note Ketchum’s Figs. 1 and 2 (2:24-49) regarding pivot connection 30 at a proximate lower end of rail 26; note Fig. 1 in conjunction to 2:44+ as the second pivot connection (not shown) at a proximate lower end of rail 26’.
As per claim 4, Ketchum discloses further comprising a lateral support extending between the first side support and the second side support (top rail 27 extends between rails 26 and 26’)(Fig. 1; 2:24-31).
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the lateral support is positioned at or proximate upper ends of the first side support and the second side support, note Fig. 1; 2:24-3 of Ketchum regarding top rail 27 extends between rails 26 and 26’.
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein the one or more cross-members include: a first cross-member extending between the first pivotable connector and the second sliding connector; and a second cross-member extending between the second pivotable connector and the first sliding connector, note Tanabe regarding a crossbar 122 pivotally connected to a leg 106 and to a slidable bracket 118; a crossbar 124 pivotally connected to a leg 110 and to a slidable bracket 114)(Figs. 1 and 2 and at least [0026]). 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 Ketchum’s wherein the one or more cross-members include: a first cross-member extending between the first pivotable connector and the second sliding connector; and a second cross-member extending between the second pivotable connector and the first sliding connector for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 16, with respect to wherein the first brace and the second brace are extendable, note Piras’s Figs. 1 and 3a-3c (3:5+) regarding extensible bars 9 (i.e., extendable braces). 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 Ketchum’s wherein the first brace and the second brace are extendable for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical connection that facilitate a desirable position of the brace/s-to-support/s. Such modification to Ketchum would have been desirable to allow the rebounder to be position in changing and desirable positions (e.g., Piras’ 3:5+).
As per claim 17, with respect to further comprising a net coupled to the first side support and the second side support, note Ketchum’s Fig. 1 as well as 1:44-48; and 3:4+ as screen/panel 13 connected with rails 26 and 26’.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketchum, Piras and Tanabe as applied to claims 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Liao US 5,681,045 (“Liao”).
As per claim 6, with respect to further comprising: a net; and a plurality of net connectors extending between the (a) the lateral and the net and (b) the first pivotable connector, the second pivotable connector, and the net, note Ketchum regarding a screen 13 connected to front frame 12, with a plurality of net connectors; between hinges (such as pivot pins 29 and/ 30) and connectors to upper rails 26 to rear frame 11)(Figs. 1 and 2; 1:44-49; 2:24-55 and 3:4+).
Ketchum is not specific regarding a pair of hinges pivotably coupling the lateral support to the first side support and the second side support.
However, in similar field of apparatuses, Liao discloses a pair of hinges pivotably coupling a lateral support to a first side support and a second side support (goal apparatus 100 includes an upper tube 90T pivotably coupled to hinges 104)(Figs. 4 and 5; 3:1-49). 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 Ketchum’s with a pair of hinges pivotably coupling the lateral support to the first side support and the second side support for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement that facilitate collapsible of the apparatus yet provide suitable securement while the apparatus is in a use condition. Such hinges means would have been much desired within Ketchum to facilitate the rebounder apparatus in a collapsed position for storage and/or transportation purposes yet insure that the rebounder apparatus is sturdy enough during use. Within the modified Ketchum by at least the teachings of Liao, the net would have been position between the pair of hinges (as taught by Liao).
As per claim 7, Ketchum is not specific regarding wherein the lateral support includes a hinge element positioned proximate a center thereof.
However, Liao discloses wherein a lateral support includes a hinge element positioned proximate a center thereof (a central joint 106 of upper tube 90T)(Figs. 4 and 5; 3:3-49 and 5:4-16). 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 Ketchum’s wherein the lateral support includes a hinge element positioned proximate a center thereof for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6.
As per claim 8, with respect to wherein the hinge element includes a locking mechanism configured to pivotably lock the lateral support in an unfolded configuration, note Liao’s Fig. 4 in conjunction to 3:3-15, 3:43-49 and 5:4-16 regarding central joint 106 to be locked the upper tube 90T in an unfolded position (Fig. 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 Ketchum’s wherein the hinge element includes a locking mechanism configured to pivotably lock the lateral support in an unfolded configuration for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketchum, Piras and Tanabe as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Mayo US 2009/0105050 (“Mayo”).
As per claim 10, Ketchum, by at least the teachings of Tanabe, is not specific regarding further comprising a cross-support locking mechanism pivotably coupled to the first cross-member and coupled to the second cross-member.
However, in a similar field of apparatuses utilizing crossmembers, Mayo discloses further comprising a cross-support locking mechanism pivotably coupled to a first cross-member and coupled to a second cross-member (pivot 14 included locking means (knob 34 and gripping washers) between crossmember’s legs (bars 12)(Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0020]-[0024]). 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 Ketchum- Tanabe’s further comprising a cross-support locking mechanism pivotably coupled to the first cross-member and coupled to the second cross-member for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement that facilitate collapsible of the apparatus yet provide enhance securement while the apparatus is in a use condition as the crossbars are locked.
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein the second cross-member includes a first leg and a second leg, note Mayo’s Figs. 1 and 2 ([0021] and [0022]) regarding support bars 12, i.e., a first and a second legs. 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 Ketchum’s wherein the second cross-member includes a first leg and a second leg for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 10.
As per claim 12, with respect to wherein the first leg extends between the second pivotable connector and the cross-support locking mechanism, and wherein the second leg extends between the cross-support locking mechanism and the first sliding connector, note Tanabe regarding a crossbar 122 pivotally connected to a leg 106 and to a slidable bracket 118; a crossbar 124 pivotally connected to a leg 110 and to a slidable bracket 114)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0021]-[0029]); note Mayo’s Figs. 1 and 2 and [0021]-[0023] regarding legs 12 extending through pivot 14 into respective sliding plates 15. 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 the modified Ketchum wherein the first leg extends between the second pivotable connector and the cross-support locking mechanism, and wherein the second leg extends between the cross-support locking mechanism and the first sliding connector for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 9 above. The modified Ketchum by at least the teachings of Tanabe and Mayo, would have included the first leg extends between the second pivotable connector and the cross-support locking mechanism, and wherein the second leg extends between the cross-support locking mechanism and the first sliding connector.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketchum, Piras, Tanabe and Mayo as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Haboush US 1, 701, 206 (“Haboush”).
As per claim 13, Ketchum, by at least the teachings of Mayo, is not specific regarding wherein the second leg is axially offset from the first leg.
However, Haboush discloses wherein a second leg is axially offset from a first leg (brace 10 is offset from brace 12)(Fig. 1; page 1:96-page 2:2 and page 2:31+). 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 Ketchum- Mayo’s wherein the second leg is axially offset from the first leg for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Haboush’s suggestions to form an offset leg of the crossbar that facilitate collapsing of a frame (e.g., Haboush’s page 1:27-42; page 1:90+and page 2:70+).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketchum, Piras and Tanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vavala et al US 5,833,234 (“Vavala”) .
As per claim 15, Ketchum is not specific regarding wherein the first brace is pivotably coupled to the first side support at a position between a lower end and an upper end thereof.
However, in a similar field of rebounder apparatuses, Vavala discloses wherein a first brace is pivotably coupled to a first side support at a position between a lower end and an upper end thereof (a telescoping member 40 pivotably coupled to a side support/frame side 14 at a connection means 46)(Figs. 1, 2 and 5; 3:11-33). 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 Ketchum’s wherein the first brace is pivotably coupled to the first side support at a position between a lower end and an upper end thereof for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement that firmly and securely connects the support with the brace while the apparatus is in the use condition.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piras in view of Liao.
As per claim 18, Piras discloses an apparatus (training tool 1)(Figs. 1-3c; 2:33-4:36) comprising: a base frame assembly including: a first base member (right ground post 11)(Figs. 1 and 3a-3c); and a second base member (left ground post 11)(Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 3:10+); an upper frame assembly including: a first side support (right post 3)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c); a second side support (left post 3)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 2:38+); a first hinge coupled to an upper end of the first side support (right hinge 10 coupled to upper end of right post 3)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c); a second hinge coupled to an upper end of the second side support (left hinge 10 coupled to upper end of left post 3)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 3:3+); a lateral support extending between the first hinge and the second hinge (crossbar 4 between the left and right hinges 10)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 2:64-3:4); a first connector pivotably coupling the first side support with the first base member (right hinge 13 connects right post 3 with right ground bar 11)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c); a second connector pivotably coupling the second side support with the second base member (left hinge 13 connects left post 3 with left ground bar 11)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 3:14+); a net (net 6)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 2:53+); and a plurality of net connectors (clamps 7)(Figs. 2a and 2b; 2:53-63) extending between (a) the net (net 6) and (b) the first hinge (right hinge 10), the second hinge (left hinge 10), the first connector (right hinge 13), and the second connector (left hinge 13)( Figs. 1 and 3a-3c).
Piras is not specific regarding the lateral support including a third hinge positioned proximate a center thereof.
However, Liao discloses a lateral support including a third hinge positioned proximate a center thereof (apparatus 100 with a lateral support upper tube 90T includes a central joint 106)(Figs. 4 and 5; 3:3-49 and 5:4-16). 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 Piras’ lateral support including a third hinge positioned proximate a center thereof for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement that facilitate collapsible of the apparatus yet provide suitable securement while the apparatus is in a use condition. Such hinges means would have been much desired within Piras to facilitate the rebounder apparatus in a collapsed position for storage and/or transportation purposes yet insure that the rebounder apparatus is sturdy enough during use.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piras and Liao as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mayo.
As per claim 19, Piras discloses further comprising: a first brace extending between the first side support and the first base member (a right extensible bar 9)(Figs. 1 and 3a-3c); a second brace extending between the second side support and the second base member (a left extensible bar 9)(Figs. 1 and 3a-3c; 2:64-3:17).
Piras is not specific regarding and one or more cross-members extending between the first base member and the second base member.
However, Mayo discloses and one or more cross-members extending between a first base member and a second base member (crossmembers 12 extending between base members 18)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0021]-[0023]). 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 Piras’ with one or more cross-members extending between the first base member and the second base member for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement that facilitate collapsible of the apparatus yet provide enhance securement while the apparatus is in a use condition. Such crossbars means would have been much desired within Piras to facilitate the rebounder apparatus in a collapsed position for storage and/or transportation purposes yet insure that the rebounder apparatus is sturdy enough during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art to Ketchum, Piras, Tanabe, Liao and Mayo alone or in combination is not specific nor render it obvious to form an apparatus “wherein the cross-support locking mechanism defines an aperture, wherein the first cross-member includes a spring biased detent button positioned along a length thereof, and wherein the spring biased detent button of the first cross-member is positioned to selectively engage with the aperture of the cross-support locking mechanism to pivotably fix the first cross-member with the cross-support locking mechanism” as require within claim 14.
Conclusion
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 8/10/2026
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights