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 .
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.
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 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) 15, 17-21, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan Jinting (CN209475507U, hereinafter referred to as “Fan Jinting”) in view of Insport Tarmak B500 box video on youtube.com dated 04/07/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Tarmak”).
Regarding claim 15, Fan Jinting discloses an apparatus for transporting and mechanically supporting a post (Figs 1-3, carrying case including a cabinet 12 comprising case side and sides with covers and walls, for a post (3)), comprising: a case (12) including at least five contiguous panels that define a substantially hexahedral enclosure (note: hexahedral volume can be a rectangular box structure for the cabinet 12 shown by Figs 1-3, with 6 panels/boards for top, bottom, and four sides, all being contiguously coupled on at least one edge thereof); ….. ; wherein the panels comprise a floor panel (Fig. 1, panel of cabinet 12 facing ground), two side panels (two side panels, one being labelled 12 in fig 1), ……. a post including a stump (Figs 1-3, stump (11) attached to 4) forming a lower portion of the post (Figs 1-3, post (3) include a bottom section at stump (11)), an end of the stump being disposed within and attached to the case (Fig 2, stump (11) below 3-1 is within case 12, Figs 1-2 and 4, and stump 11 is attached to case 12);
However, Fan Jinting alone fails to sufficiently disclose a retractable pull handle disposed at a first end of the case; at least one pair of wheels disposed at a second end of the case opposite the first end …….. a wheel-side panel adjacent the pair of wheels, and a handle-end panel parallel to the wheel-side panel and connecting opposite edges of the side panels. ………… and at least one support structure coupled to the case and configured to mechanically support the case and the post relative to an underlying surface to resist tipping, sliding, or rotation of the post.
However, Fan Jinting and Tarmak combined teach the following: a retractable pull handle disposed at a first end of the case (Tarmak: a retractable pull handle located at the front of the assembly, can be modified to be mounted to top at front panel of Fan Jinting; see screen capture below); at least one pair of wheels disposed at a second end of the case opposite the first end (see screen capture below: Tarmak: pair of wheels can be disposed at distal end of carrying case of Fan Jinting at opposite ends of the retractable pull handle) ….. a wheel-side panel adjacent the pair of wheels, and a handle-end panel parallel to the wheel-side panel and connecting opposite edges of the side panels (Fan Jinting: panels can be modified in sizes to house the Tarmak B500 box assembly with pair of wheels) ….. and at least one support structure coupled to the case and configured to mechanically support the case and the post relative to an underlying surface to resist tipping, sliding, or rotation of the post (Tarmak: multiple sand/water weights shown in video in 1:07 ~ 1:20 min used as extra weight to augment stability for the case to resist tipping, sliding or rotation of post).
screen capture taken from Tarmak
PNG
media_image1.png
719
1014
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the convertible carrying case and securement system for a post of Fan Jinting by Tarmak based on the following rationales: a) referring to Fan Jinting, the entire convertible carrying case and securement system for a post can be very heavy, due to having many metal components and pieces, which may require multiple people for moving, On the other hand, referring to Tarmak, the entire assembly can be transported by wheels and retractable pull handle with ease by just one person as shown in Tarmak video in 2:19 ~ 2:23 min; b) referring to Fan Jinting, the overall shape/structure of the cabinet 12 being longer or taller in height than corresponding length and width footprint as a rectangular box in view of the basketball goal and backboard being fully extended during play would have potential issues of tipping over during basketball play, based on conventional laws of physics. On the other hand, the overall structure of the raised assembly of Tarmak shown in 1:53 ~ 2:00 min would have significantly more stability due to overall width and length dimensions alongside the presence of multiple sand/water weights shown in video in 1:07 ~ 1:12 min, and thus it would be logical to modify the dimensions of the carrying case of Fan Jinting to thereby fit/match the basketball stand components of Tarmak. As a result, above discussed advantages of Tarmak over Fan Jinting serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Fan Jinting by Tarmak, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Fan Jinting belongs to same analogous art as Tarmak, as being portable and collapsible basketball goal/post system with telescoping post.
Regarding claim 17, Fan Jinting discloses wherein a separate single-segment tube (Fig 2, tube section 3-1) or base portion of a multiple segment tube (Figs 2-4, multiple sections 3-1, 3002, 3-3, 3-4, Fig 3, post 3 have extension tube segments 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 forming a telescoping post) is coupled to the stump to form overlapping sections of the post (Figs 2-3, tube section 3-1 slide relative to stump (11) to form overlapping sections of post 3).
Regarding claim 18, Fan Jinting disclose wherein a segment of said multi-segment tube further comprises a coaxially positioned attachment collar or cup-like element (Fig 2, attachment collar (3-5) is connected to a structural member (3-6) on one end thereof; Note: due to the presence of “or” in above limitation, “cup-like element” in the above limitation is/are considered optional and is thereby omitted).
Regarding claim 19, Fan Jinting discloses wherein the attachment collar or the cup-like element is connected to an attachment extension on one end (Fig 2, attachment collar (3-5) is connected to attachment extension (3-6) on one end thereof) while an opposite end of the attachment is connected to a hangable structure (Fig 2, attachment extension (3-6) is connected to hangable structures, basketball backboard (2) and hoop assembly (1)).
Regarding claim 20, Fan Jinting discloses wherein the attachment collar or the cup-like element is connected to a boom or a structural member (Fig 2, attachment collar (3-5) is connected to a structural member (3-6) on one end thereof; Note: due to the presence of multiple instances of “or” in above limitation, “cup-like element” and “boom” in the above limitation is/are considered optional and is thereby omitted).
Regarding claim 21, Fan Jinting discloses wherein a separate single-segment tube or a base portion of a multi-segment telescoping tube is slidably coupled to the stump to form overlapping sections of the post (Fig 2, stump 11 and base (3-1) of multi-segment telescoping tubes (3-1 to 3-4) is slidably couped as shown by Figs 2 and 3; Note: due to the presence of “or” in above limitation, “a separate single-segment tube” in the above limitation is/are considered optional and is thereby omitted).
Regarding claim 31, Fan Jinting discloses further comprising a plurality of ledges extending from inner facets of the panels for supporting objects during storage (see annotated figure below, hoop (1) hangable can be placed inside carrying case between ledges).
PNG
media_image2.png
780
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Fan Jinting fails to disclose wherein the floor panel is configured to hold one or more weights to increase stability by resisting tipping of the post.
However, Tarmak teaches wherein the floor panel is configured to hold one or more weights to increase stability by resisting tipping of the post (multiple sand/water weights shown in video in 1:07 ~ 1:20 min used as extra weight to augment stability).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the convertible carrying case and securement system for a post of Fan Jinting by Tarmak based on the same rationales previously discussed for claim 15 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan Jinting (CN209475507U, hereinafter referred to as “Fan Jinting”) in view of Insport Tarmak B500 box video on youtube.com dated 04/07/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Tarmak”), and further in view of Le Cunff (US20220288475A, hereinafter referred to as “Le Cunff”).
Regarding claim 22, Fan Jinting fails to disclose wherein the stump and the tube or tube segments each include through-holes configured to receive a pin, the pin being insertable through aligned holes between the stump and an extension tube, between adjacent tube segments, or between a tube segment and a coaxially positioned attachment collar or cup-like element.
However, Le Cunff teaches wherein the stump and the tube or tube segments each include through-holes configured to receive a pin (Figs 10 and 10a, holes 25 drill through from outer side of the tube to inner side of the tubes (2a, 2b); Fig 10b, it is implied that a pin/protrusion can go through the hole 25 for locking the two tube sections 2a and 2b along axis A2), the pin being insertable through aligned holes between the stump and an extension tube, between adjacent tube segments (Fig 10b, it is implied that a pin/protrusion can go through the hole 25 for locking the two tube sections 2a and 2b along axis A2), or between a tube segment and a coaxially positioned attachment collar or cup-like element (Note: due to the presence of “or” in above limitation, the above limitation is considered optional and is thereby omitted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the convertible carrying case and securement system for a post of Fan Jinting by Le Cunff based on the following rationales: a) referring to Fan Jinting, the entire convertible carrying case and securement system for a post can be very heavy, being comprising of many metal components and pieces, which may require multiple people to move, but does not have any transport convenience mechanisms such as wheels that Le Cunff teaches, referring to Le Cunff, the entire assembly can be transported by wheels with ease by just one person in Fig 8b; b) referring to Fan Jinting, the overall shape/structure of the cabinet 12 being longer or taller in height than corresponding length and width footprint as a rectangular box in view of the basketball goal and backboard being fully extended during play would have potential issues of tipping over, based on conventional laws of physics. On the other hand, the overall structure of the raised post assembly of Le Cunff shown in Fig 5 would have significantly more stability due to overall larger width and length dimensions alongside the presence of multiple sand/water ballasts discussed in [0033] of Le Cunff; c) referring to both Tarmak and Le Cunff, it appears that at least one embodiment taught by Le Cunff in Figs 5-8 appear to be exactly the same product as the Tarmak b500 box assembly for portable and collapsible basketball goal/post system with telescoping post. Meanwhile, the applicant for Le Cunff is Decathlon company which is same company for the Tarmak B500 box assembly (see
https://support.decathlon.co.uk/basketball-hoop-tarmak-b500-box). Thus, it would have obvious to consult information from Le Cunff in view of the same product described in Tarmak. As a result, above discussed advantages of Le Cunff over Fan Jinting serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Fan Jinting by Le Cunff in view of Tarmak, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Fan Jinting belongs to same analogous art as Le Cunff as being portable and collapsible basketball goal/post system with telescoping post.
Regarding claim 23, Fan Jinting discloses wherein the attachment collar or cup-like element is connected to an attachment extension on one end (Fig 2, attachment collar (3-5) is connected to attachment extension (3-6) on one end thereof) while an opposite end of the attachment is connected to a hangable structure (Fig 2, attachment extension (3-6) is connected to hangable structures, basketball backboard (2) and hoop assembly (1)).
Regarding claim 24, Fan Jinting discloses wherein the attachment collar or the cup-like element is connected to a boom or a structural member (Fig 2, attachment collar (3-5) is connected to a structural member (3-6) on one end thereof; Note: due to the presence of multiple instances of “or” in above limitation, “cup-like element” and “boom” in the above limitation is/are considered optional and is thereby omitted).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan Jinting (CN209475507U, hereinafter referred to as “Fan Jinting”) in view of Insport Tarmak B500 box video on youtube.com dated 04/07/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Tarmak”), and further in view of Matherene (US 5259612A, hereinafter referred to as “Matherene”).
Regarding claim 25, Fan Jinting and Tarmak, singular or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the case includes a plurality of construction levels, each construction level being attached to an inner structural surface of one of the panels of the case.
However, Matherene teaches wherein the case includes a plurality of construction levels, each construction level being attached to an inner structural surface of one of the panels of the case (abstract line 13: a bubble level for vertically positioning the pole, see Figs 10 and 11, bubble level 118).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the convertible carrying case and securement system for a post of Fan Jinting by Matherene based on the following rationales: referring to Fan Jinting, and Tarmak, both fail to disclose of any vertical leveling or alignment mechanism. On the other hand, Matherene specifically teaches of a bubble level 118 which can be mounted precisely to the collar 84 and to the pole 14, for adjusting proper leveling of the entire system as described in col. 8 lines 24-40. As a result, above discussed advantages of Matherene over Fan Jinting and Tarmak serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Fan Jinting by Matherene in view of Tarmak, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Fan Jinting belongs to same analogous art as Matherene as being portable and collapsible basketball goal/post system with telescoping post.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan Jinting (CN209475507U, hereinafter referred to as “Fan Jinting”) in view of Insport Tarmak B500 box video on youtube.com dated 04/07/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Tarmak”), and further in view of Bison playtime adjustable portable basketball stand online product page, (hereinafter referred to as “Bison”).
Regarding claim 28, Fan Jinting and Tarmak, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach wherein a ground-facing surface of the floor panel is lined with a rubberized or non-slip material.
However, Bison teaches wherein a ground-facing surface of the floor panel is lined with a rubberized or non-slip material (page 4 last line: ground-facing surface of case floor is lined with a rubber base trim to prevent floor damage; note: due to the presence of “or” in above limitation, the “non-slip material” in above limitation is considered optional and is thereby omitted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the convertible carrying case and securement system for a post of Fan Jinting by Bison based on the following rationale: referring to Fan Jinting, and Tarmak, both fail to disclose of any material or technique to prevent floor damage by the erected assembly during use. On the other hand, Bison specifically teaches of stand bottom lined with a rubber base trim to prevent floor damage. As a result, above discussed advantages of Bison over Fan Jinting and Tarmak serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Fan Jinting by Bison in view of Tarmak, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Fan Jinting belongs to same analogous art as Bison as being portable and collapsible basketball goal/post system with telescoping post.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan Jinting (CN209475507U, hereinafter referred to as “Fan Jinting”) in view of Insport Tarmak B500 box video on youtube.com dated 04/07/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Tarmak”), and further in view of Cappuccio (US 8651492B1, hereinafter referred to as “Cappuccio”).
Regarding claim 29, Fan Jinting fails to disclose further comprising a plurality of peg-accommodating boreholes along top and bottom surfaces of at least two non-floor panels of the case to enable vertical stacking of multiple cases when pegs are positioned in aligned boreholes of corresponding panels.
However, Cappuccio teaches further comprising a plurality of peg-accommodating boreholes (Figs 2, 4, 5, rectangular apertures 46, 48) along top and bottom surfaces of at least two non-floor panels of the case to enable vertical stacking of multiple cases when pegs are positioned in aligned boreholes of corresponding panels (col 6, lines 3-5: preferably two substantially identical apparatuses (10) are used that area spaced apart and facing like a basketball game; thus apparatus 10 with the base 12 shown in Fig 2 is duplicated and stacked due to flatness of backboard 16, thus, top and bottom surfaces of each backboard 16/ non-floor case panel would enable sequential vertical stacking of separate cases, meanwhile, presence of rectangular apertures 46, 48 permit pegs to be situated therein; note: “peg” used herein is not a claimed element as part of the convertible carrying case and securement system, instead, “peg” is merely described as an external workpiece meant for intended use of the system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the convertible carrying case and securement system for a post of Fan Jinting by Cappuccio based on the following rationales: referring to Fan Jinting in Figs 1-3, the cabinet/case 12 appears to be a very large rectangular container having a very large height profile, thereby occupying a large volume. On the other hand, referring to Figs 2-4 of Cappuccio, the case/base 12 appears to be a container of much compact height, thereby occupying much less volume to hold the entire assembly. As a result, above discussed advantages of Cappuccio over Fan Jinting serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Fan Jinting by Cappuccio, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Fan Jinting and Cappuccio belongs to same analogous art as being a portable and collapsible basketball type goal/post system with telescoping post and floor support.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Insport Tarmak B500 box video on youtube.com dated 04/07/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Tarmak”) in view of Fan Jinting (CN209475507U, hereinafter referred to as “Fan Jinting”).
Regarding claim 33, Tarmak discloses a method of deploying and stabilizing a portable post assembly (video at 0:51min ~ 1:59 min), comprising: transporting the apparatus of claim 15 (see remarks for claim 15 above) to a desired location using the retractable pull handle and the pair of wheels (video at 2:20min~2:24min); positioning the case on a ground surface (video at 0:51min); extending at least one adjustable support structure from the case until the support structure contacts the ground surface (video at 1:20 min ~ 1:23min); adjusting a height of the support structure to level the case (video at 1:45 min~1:59min); and mechanically supporting the post relative to the ground surface using the support structure to resist tipping of the post (video at 2:00 min, note filling of sand in 1:07 min facilitates resist tipping of post).
Claim(s) 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Insport Tarmak B500 box video on youtube.com dated 04/07/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Tarmak”) in view of Fan Jinting (CN209475507U, hereinafter referred to as “Fan Jinting”), and further in view of Le Cunff (US20220288475A, hereinafter referred to as “Le Cunff”).
Regarding claim 34, Tarmak and Fan Jinting fails to disclose or teach further comprising retracting the adjustable support structure, tilting the case onto the pair of wheels, and rolling the apparatus to a second location.
However, Le Cunff teaches further comprising retracting the adjustable support structure (Figs 4b, 11b and 11c), tilting the case onto the pair of wheels (Figs 4b, 11b and 11c, [0038]), and rolling the apparatus to a second location ([0038]).
Regarding claim 35, Tarmak and Fan Jinting fails to disclose or teach further comprising sliding an extension tube relative to the stump to form a telescoping post and inserting a pin through aligned holes of the stump and the extension tube to lock a height of the post.
However, Le Cunff teaches further comprising sliding an extension tube relative to the stump to form a telescoping post and inserting a pin through aligned holes of the stump and the extension tube to lock a height of the post (Figs 10 and 10a, holes 25 drill through from outer side of the tube to inner side of the tubes (2a, 2b), Fig 10b, it is implied that a pin/protrusion can go through the hole 25 for locking the two tube sections 2a and 2b along axis A2; Fig 5a, stump (13), extension tube (30b), telescoping post (2b, 30b, 30a combined).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the convertible carrying case and securement system for a post of Tarmak by Le Cunff based on the following rationales: a) referring to Tarmak, the assembly video for convertible carrying case and securement system for a post for playing basketball lacks details for describing components. On the other hand, referring to Le Cunff, the described equipment for playing basketball appear to be substantially similar to Tarmak, but in much greater details in description information. Thus, it would have obvious to consult information from Le Cunff in view of the same product described in Tarmak. As a result, above discussed informational advantages of Le Cunff over Fan Jinting and Tarmak serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Tarmak by Le Cunff , and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Tarmak belongs to same analogous art as Le Cunff as being portable and collapsible basketball goal/post system with telescoping post.
Allowable subject matter
Claim(s) 16, 26, 27 and 30 is/are 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: Fan Jinting and Tarmak and other cited prior art fail to disclose or teach “wherein each ADJSS sub-assembly comprises an adjustment knob, a foot, and a threaded shaft extending between the adjustment knob and the foot, wherein the foot comprises a hemispherical element including a center-top borehole configured to receive the threaded shaft, and wherein the hemispherical element further includes a threaded borehole that receives a fastening element configured to orthogonally engage the threaded shaft to secure the foot to the threaded shaft” of claim 16. By virtue of dependency upon claim 16, dependent claims 26, 27 and 30 also contain allowable subject matter. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shannon (US 20070191148A1) discloses a self-storage basketball goal system. Amrani (US 8028448B2) discloses a portable sign support assembly. Bai Lin (CN107281723A) discloses a portable basketball system mounted to a carrying case. Intravatola (US 8599097B2) discloses a collapsible portable stand comprises support legs and a mast that collapse into a small equipment case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632