93Notice 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: incorrect claims’ preambles. The claims are dependent from the method of claim 13, yet each claim refers to claim 13 as “the system of claim 13”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a second spacer” (claim 11) and “a second sleeve” (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 2, 11, 12, 16 and 20 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.
With respect to claim 2, further clarification is required what does applicant consider “a strut” secured to the front legs, as no such term as “strut” was define within the original disclosure, regarding such structure.
With respect to claims 11 and 16, further clarification is required what does applicant consider “a second spacer” (claim 11) and “a second sleeve” (claim 16), of the hinge assembly, as no such terms were within the original disclosure to define the hinge assembly.
With respect to claim 11, the limitation " between the two sides of the bracket " in 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the U-shaped hinge bracket " in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 20, the claim is rejected based upon its dependency on claim 16.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-15 and 18-19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,134,016 (“ ‘016 “). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of ‘016 recites all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “a backboard system for assembly comprising: a base having a top surface and at least one indentation in the top surface; a vertical support assembly at least partially or fully nestable within the at least one indentation, the vertical support assembly comprising a hinge assembly, two front legs, each having a lower end detachably securable to the base and an upper end secured to and rotatable about the hinge assembly when the lower end is detached from the base, two back legs, each having an upper end secured to the hinge assembly and a lower end secured to the base, and a pole having a bottom end secured to the hinge assembly and a top end; an extension arm securable to the top end of the pole; a backboard securable to the extension arm; and a rim securable to the backboard”. Every limitation in the above claim 1 is recited in claim 1 of ‘016, and thus claim 1 anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘016.
Furthermore, it is also noted that it has been held that although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because once an applicant has received a patent for a specific embodiment, he is not entitled to a patent for a generic or broader invention; the more specific anticipates the broader. In re Goodman, 29 USPQ 2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claim(s) of the above application is merely broader than the claim(s) of the other application (which is now patent 12,134,016).
Claims 2-4 recite similar limitations as claims 2-4, respectively of the ‘016.
Claim 6 recite similar limitations as claim 5 of the ‘016.
Claim 7 recite similar limitations as claim 6 of the ‘016.
Claim 8 recite similar limitations as claim 7 of the ‘016.
Claim 9 recite similar limitations as claim 8 of the ‘016.
Claim 10 recite similar limitations as claim 9 of the ‘016.
Claim 12 recite similar limitations as claim 10 of the ‘016.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of ‘016 recites all the limitations of above claim 13, namely “a method for assembling a basketball backboard system, the method comprising: providing a base having a top surface and at least one indentation on the top surface, wherein a vertical support assembly is at least partially or fully nested in the at least one indentation, the vertical support assembly comprising a hinge assembly, two front legs, each having an upper end rotatably secured to the hinge assembly and a lower end securable to the base, two back legs, each having an upper end rotatably secured to the hinge assembly and a lower end secured to the base, and a pole having a bottom end secured to the hinge assembly and a top end; mounting a backboard to the top end of the pole; mounting a rim to the backboard; rotating the front legs to a position wherein the lower end of each front leg is securable to the base, and the upper ends of the front legs and of the back legs and the hinge assembly are raised above the base; securing the front legs to the base; rotating the hinge assembly until the pole is in a vertical position; and locking the pole in a vertical position”. Every limitations in the above claim 13 is recited in claim 11 of ‘016, and thus claim 13 anticipated by claim 11 of the ‘016.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 12 of the ‘016.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 13 of the ‘016.
Claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 15 of the ‘016.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 16 of the ‘016.
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 (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 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) 1-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al US 5,902,197 (“Davis”) in view of Shannon US 7,407,453 (“Shannon”).
As per claim 1, Davis discloses a backboard system for assembly (basketball assembly 80)(Figs. 1-9; 2:55-5:53) comprising:
a base having a top surface and at least one indentation in the top surface (base 10)(Figs. 1, 2 and 7; 3:8-23);
a vertical support assembly at least partially or fully nestable within the at least one indentation (construed as support shaft assembly 27 including upper element 26, middle element 24)(Figs. 1, 2 and 4; 2:64-3:23; note Figs. 6 and 7 (4:49-5:12) as the support assembly nestable within the base’s indentation), the vertical support assembly comprising
a hinge assembly (pivot pin 38)(Figs. 4A-5; 4:4-47), front means (support element 22), having a lower end detachably securable to the base (lower end of support 22 pivotally attached to base 10; such pivotally attachment, construed as “a detachable” attachment)(Figs. 1, 2, and 7; 3:11-23) and an upper end secured to and rotatable about the hinge assembly (upper end of support 22 rotatable about hinge 38)(Figs. 5; 4:22+); with respect to “when the lower end is detached from the base” (such amount to the function of the claimed apparatus, and to that end note the examiner’s comments hereinafter), two back legs (legs 12a and 12b)(Figs. 2 and 4A; 3:50-4:14), each having an upper end secured to the hinge assembly (legs 12a and 12b secure to hinge/pivot 38)(Fig. 4A; 4:4-21) and a lower end secured to the base (Fig. 2; 3:50+), and a pole having a bottom end secured to the hinge assembly and a top end (construed as a middle element 24 secure to hinge/pivot 38 (Fig. 4A) and a top end; Figs. 1, 2 and 7; 3:1-7);
an extension arm securable to the top end of the pole (construed as upper element 26)(Figs. 1, 2 and 7; 3:1-7) ;
a backboard securable to the extension arm (backboard 50 secure to upper element 26)(Fig. 1; 2:59+); and
a rim securable to the backboard (rim 60 secure to backboard 50)(Fig. 1; 2:59+).
With respect to the functionality of the device regarding the upper end secured to and rotatable about the hinge assembly “when the lower end is detached from the base”, per MPEP 2114 under II. manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Since Davis includes all the limitations claimed, namely upper end rotatable about an hinge, and a lower end pivotably (and detachably) from the base, the upper end (of support 22) is fully configure to rotate about the hinge assembly (38) “when the lower end is detached from the base” (the pivotal lower end 22, fully capable to be detached from base 10; at least Figs. 1 and 2 and 3:11+).
Davis is not specific regarding the front support means is “two front legs”.
However, in a similar field of basketball systems, Shannon discloses a base (box 10/lid 11) with two front legs (struts 26 and 27) detachable therefrom the base (Figs. 2 and 7; 5:56-6:7); the front legs 26-27, other ends, are connected to a hinge assembly (strut collar 56)(Fig. 1; 5:18-32). 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 Davis’s front means as “two front legs” for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Davis’s suggestions to form his front support in any known manner, such as pole, shaft, and etc. 3:21+( “Shaft support element 22 may be a shaft, pole, or any other type of support element”).
Furthermore, forming Davis’s front means as “two front legs”, as taught by Shannon, 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 for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement to facilitate the support of the basketball assembly in the use configuration yet allow it to be in the folded, storage, configuration. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Davis’s front support means to support the basketball in the use configuration and be folded when in the storage/folded configuration.
Within the modified Davis- Shannon, the basketball assembly would have two front legs (as taught by Shannon), each having a lower end detachably securable to the base (as taught by Davis and/or Shannon) and an upper end secured to and rotatable about the hinge assembly when the lower end is detached from the base(as taught by Davis and/or Shannon).
As per claim 2, Davis is not specific further comprising a strut having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is secured to a first of the two front legs, and the second end is secured to a second of the two front legs.
However, Shannon discloses further comprising a strut having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is secured to a first of the two front legs, and the second end is secured to a second of the two front legs (horizontal strut 13 between front struts/legs 26 and 27)(Fig. 1; 5:29-32). 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 Davis’s further comprising a strut having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is secured to a first of the two front legs and the second end is secured to a second of the two front legs for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Shannon’s suggestions to use such means for support and securement (e.g., 5:29+” Folding horizontal strut 13 is pivoted on struts 26 and 27 keeping them spread apart and engaged with keyways in lid 11 when it is locked in the straight position.”)
As per claim 3, with respect to wherein the base includes at least two wheels, note Davis’s Fig. 1 and 3:10-15 regarding the use of one or more wheels 11.
As per claim 4, Davis is not specific regarding wherein the pole is telescoping.
However, Shannon discloses wherein a pole is telescoping (post assembly 4 formed by telescoping sections 16-17-18-20 (Figs. 1, 2 and 11; 2:42-67; 5:18-22 and 6:25-42). 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 Davis’s wherein the pole is telescoping for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Shannon’s suggestions to from the pole as telescoping to position the goal, backboard-rim, at different heights suitable for variety of users.
As per claim 6, Davis discloses wherein the pole is disposed between the back legs in the at least one indentation (Figs. 6 and 7; 4:59+; note 4:64+” Middle element 24 (i.e., pole) then rests on top of base 10 between the two parallel lower element legs 12a and 12b (back legs). Locking pin 28 is removed from knob 30 allowing upper element 26 to be moved to its lowest position towards middle element 24”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Shannon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coats et al US 5,893,809 (“Coats”).
As per claim 5, with respect to wherein the hinge assembly, and two back legs are completely nestable within the at least one indentation and the pole is at least partially or fully nestable within the at least one indentation, note Davis’s Figs. 6 and 7 regarding back legs 12a-12b, hinge 38 and, pole 24 nestable within the indentation of base 10.
Davis- Shannon is not specific regarding the two front legs (e.g., as taught by Shannon) that are completely nestable within the at least one indentation.
However, in a similar field of basketball assemblies, Coats discloses two front legs are completely nestable within at least one indentation (front legs, flanges 54; Figs. 1 and 2; 4:37-58) are nested within compartment 64 (Fig. 9; 4:65-5:25). 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 Davis- Shannon’s two front legs (e.g., as taught by Shannon) are completely nestable within the at least one indentation for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical arrangement to store the front legs within the base in the folded configuration. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Davis’s to place the front legs within the base in the folded configuration in the most compact and secure manner.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Shannon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lane US 8,745,301 (“Lane”).
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein the at least one indentation comprises a centrally disposed indentation, and wherein the back legs and the pole are nested with the centrally disposed indentation, note Davis’s Figs. 6 and 7(4:49-5:12) as legs 12a-12b and pole 24 are disposed within the base 10 indentation.
Davis is not specific regarding and two side indentations flanking the centrally disposed indentation and the front legs are separately nested into the two side indentations.
With respect to “and two side indentations flanking the centrally disposed indentation”, in a similar field of basketball systems, Lane discloses and two side indentations flanking a centrally disposed indentation (base 30/33 with such arrangement to accommodate basketball support means within)(Figs. 11 and 13; 6:22-54). 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 Davis’s and two side indentations flanking the centrally disposed indentation for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known arrangement suitable to house the basketball goal structure within the base in a compact and safe manner. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the combination will not frustrate the intended purpose of Davis’s to form a base with indentation to accommodate the goal structure within. Using the two flanking indentations to house the front legs would have been logical as the central indentation houses the back legs, the hinge and the pole, within Davis.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Shannon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pearson US 2002/0010041 (“Pearson”).
As per claim 8, Davis is not specific wherein the top end of the pole includes an attachment plate, wherein the extension arm is securable to the attachment plate.
However, in a similar field of basketball systems, Pearson discloses wherein a top end of a pole includes an attachment plate, wherein an extension arm is securable to the attachment plate (post 12 having a hinge 18 (i.e., an attachment plate) securable to upper post section 16,i.e., an extension arm)(Figs. 1-5, 8 and 9; and at least [0018]). 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 Davis’s wherein the top end of the pole includes an attachment plate, wherein the extension arm is securable to the attachment plate for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Pearson’s suggestions that such configuration, arrangement , is suitable to facilitate the folding of the basketball goal while in the folded/transport/collapsed configuration ([0005]). Such structure would have been much desired within Davis, especially as his device is designed to be in a collapsed configuration.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis and Shannon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodard et al US 7,288,034 (“Woodard”).
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein the extension arm comprises a first and second end, the first end being securable to the pole, note Davis’s Figs. 1 and 2 (3:1+) regarding upper element 26 (i.e., extension arm) comprises a first and a second ends, the first end secured to pole 24, and the second end securable to backboard 50.
Davis is not specific regarding the second end including a backboard attachment plate for securing the backboard.
However, Woodard discloses a second end including a backboard attachment plate for securing a backboard (extension arm, a rod assembly 14 connected to a pole 12 at one end and to a support plate 18 for securing a backboard, at the other end)(Fig. 1; 4:16-25). 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 Davis’s extension arm’s second end including a backboard attachment plate for securing the backboard for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Woodard’s suggestions to use such means, as a backboard attachment plate, to firmly and securely attached a basketball goal/backboard thereto, suitable for a game of basketball.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis, Shannon and Woodard as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Parr et al US 6,019,690 (“Parr”).
As per claim 11, Davis is not specific regarding wherein the hinge assembly further comprises a second spacer secured between the two sides of the bracket and capable of receiving a locking bolt insertable through the upper ends of each back leg when the top of the hinge bracket is horizontally oriented.
However, in a similar field of basketball systems, Parr discloses wherein an hinge assembly (pivot assembly 10)(Figs. 2-5; 2:66-3:29) further comprises a second spacer secured between the two sides of the bracket and capable of receiving a locking bolt insertable through (to the best of his understanding, the examiner construed either mounting means 38 and/or securing assembly 40, as such means as “a second spacer” and “a locking bolt”) the upper ends of each back leg when the top of the hinge bracket is horizontally oriented (construed as the up portions of support member 14 connected to hinge assembly 10)(Figs. 2-7). 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 Davis’s wherein the hinge assembly further comprises a second spacer secured between the two sides of the bracket and capable of receiving a locking bolt insertable through the upper ends of each back leg when the top of the hinge bracket is horizontally oriented for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical means to facilitate the movement of the basketball between the collapsed configuration to play configuration.
As per claim 12, Davis is not specific regarding wherein the bottom end of the pole is secured to the top side of the U-shaped hinge bracket.
However, Parr discloses wherein a bottom end of a pole is secured to a top side of a U-shaped hinge bracket (such as, either bracket/hinge assembly 10, or bracket/hinge assembly 42, each is connected to support/pole 14)(Figs. 2-7; 2:66-3:57). 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 Davis’s wherein the bottom end of the pole is secured to the top side of the U-shaped hinge bracket for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 11.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Shannon and Geise US 5,102,128 (“Geise”).
As per claim 13, Davis discloses a method for assembling a basketball backboard system (manner of assembling of basketball system 80)(Figs. 1-9; 2:55-5:53), the method comprising: providing a base having a top surface and at least one indentation on the top surface, wherein a vertical support assembly is at least partially or fully nested in the at least one indentation, the vertical support assembly comprising a hinge assembly, having an upper end rotatably secured to the hinge assembly and a lower end securable to the base, two back legs, each having an upper end rotatably secured to the hinge assembly and a lower end secured to the base, and a pole having a bottom end secured to the hinge assembly and a top end (providing a base having a top surface and at least one indentation in the top surface (base 10)(Figs. 1, 2 and 7; 3:8-23); a vertical support assembly at least partially or fully nestable within the at least one indentation (construed as support shaft assembly 27 including upper element 26, middle element 24)(Figs. 1, 2 and 4; 2:64-3:23; note Figs. 6 and 7 (4:49-5:12) as the support assembly nestable within the base’s indentation), the vertical support assembly comprising a hinge assembly (pivot pin 38)(Figs. 4A-5; 4:4-47), front means (support element 22), having a lower end detachably securable to the base (lower end of support 22 pivotally attached to base 10; such pivotally attachment, construed as “a detachable” attachment)(Figs. 1, 2, and 7; 3:11-23) and an upper end secured to and rotatable about the hinge assembly (upper end of support 22 rotatable about hinge 38)(Figs. 5; 4:22+); with respect to “when the lower end is detached from the base” (such amount to the function of the claimed apparatus, and to that end note the examiner’s comments hereinafter), two back legs (legs 12a and 12b)(Figs. 2 and 4A; 3:50-4:14), each having an upper end secured to the hinge assembly (legs 12a and 12b secure to hinge/pivot 38)(Fig. 4A; 4:4-21) and a lower end secured to the base (Fig. 2; 3:50+), and a pole having a bottom end secured to the hinge assembly and a top end (construed as a middle element 24 secure to hinge/pivot 38 (Fig. 4A) and a top end; Figs. 1, 2 and 7; 3:1-7);
mounting a backboard to the top end of the pole (mounting a backboard securable to the extension arm (backboard 50 secure to upper element 26)(Fig. 1; 2:59+); and mounting a rim to the backboard a rim securable to the backboard (mounting rim 60 secure to backboard 50)(Fig. 1; 2:59+) and locking the pole in a vertical position (Fig. 1).
Davis is not specific regarding the front means includes two front legs.
Davis is not specific regarding rotating the front legs to a position wherein the lower end of each front leg is securable to the base, and the upper ends of the front legs and of the back legs and the hinge assembly are raised above the base; securing the front legs to the base, and rotating the hinge assembly until the pole is in a vertical position.
With respect to the two front legs, and rotational of the legs with respect to a base above the base, Shannon discloses a base (box 10/lid 11) with two front legs (struts 26 and 27) detachable therefrom the base (Figs. 2 and 7; 5:56-6:7); the front legs 26-27, other ends, are connected to a hinge assembly (strut collar 56)(Fig. 1; 5:18-32). While the basketball in the play configuration, the front legs 26-27 are rotatable above base 10/11 to fit with keyways 62-63, as the support manipulated by hinge means (strut collar 25). 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 Davis’s front means includes two front legs, rotating the front legs to a position wherein the lower end of each front leg is securable to the base, and the upper ends of the front legs and of the back legs and the hinge assembly are raised above the base; and securing the front legs to the base for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to and rotating the hinge assembly until the pole is in a vertical position, Geise discloses rotating of a winch assembly 92 (i.e., a hinge) to position a pole (mast 36) vertically (Figs. 1 and 2, the mast in the vertical position; Figs. 4 and 5, 4:3-58, the rotating of winch/hinge assembly 92 for such). 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 Davis’s and rotating the hinge assembly until the pole is in a vertical position for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known mechanical means to facilitate the position of the pole between use configuration (i.e., pole is vertical) and foldable configuration in a safe and a control manner.
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein the pole is telescoping, and wherein the method further comprises extending the telescoping pole to a desired rim height, note Shannon regarding a pole as a telescoping pole (post assembly 4 formed by telescoping sections 16-17-18-20 (Figs. 1, 2 and 11; 2:42-67; 5:18-22 and 6:25-42). 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 Davis’s wherein the pole is telescoping, and wherein the method further comprises extending the telescoping pole to a desired rim height for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15 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 is not specific nor render it obvious to form a basketball system, that among other things “wherein the hinge assembly further comprises a U-shaped hinge bracket having a top and two sides defining an opening oriented front-to-back and each side having an arc-shaped slot; a rotation-limiting pin secured to the upper end of each back leg and passing through the arc-shaped slot, such that the hinge bracket is rotatable through the angle defined by the arc length of the arc-shaped slot; and a first spacer secured between the two sides of the bracket and capable of receiving a detent pin insertable through the upper ends of each back leg when the top of the hinge bracket is horizontally oriented”, as require by claim 10.
The closest prior art is not specific nor render it obvious regarding a method for assembling a basketball backboard system that among other things “wherein the hinge assembly further :comprises U-shaped hinge bracket having a top and two sides defining an opening oriented front-to-back and each side having an arc-shaped slot; a rotation-limiting pin secured to the upper end of each back leg and passing through the arc-shaped slot, such that the hinge bracket is rotatable through the angle defined by the arc length of the arc-shaped slot; and a first sleeve secured between the two sides of the bracket and capable of receiving a detent pin insertable through the upper ends of each back leg when the top of the hinge bracket is horizontally oriented”, as require by claim 15.
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 8/28/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights