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 .
Priority
2. Applicant claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63607627, filed June 21, 2021. Claims 1-20 have been afforded the benefit of this filing date.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“[…] wherein the extension fastener is and the object fastener […]” should be “[…] wherein the extension fastener and the object fastener […]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the vertical extension is marked to indicate the total height of the portion of the object closest to the floor at different positions of the first vertical section, the second vertical section and the third vertical extension relative to each other.” Examiner notes that, while it is clear how the marking system illustrated in the drawings would indicate the total height of the vertical extension relative to the ground, it is not explained how this same marking system could also indicate the height of an arbitrary “object” of unknown length suspended from the device relative to the ground. The specification makes it clear in paragraph 38 that the object can be any of several different types of balls (“The object 90 can be such as, for example, football, volleyball, basketball, baseball, tennis ball, or the like”): as these objects all have different dimensions, a set of static markings would not be inherently capable of simultaneously indicating the relative heights of all these different objects. As neither the specification nor the drawings provide any clarification of how this issue is addressed, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “a loader configured to support the object and allow a user to raise the object such that the object fastener contacts the extension fastener.” This “loader” is never depicted in the drawings, nor is its structure or even its manner of operation described anywhere in the specification: every mention of a “loader” in the specification appears to merely repeat the claim language verbatim. As neither the specification nor the drawings provide any description of the “loader” or the precise manner in which it operates, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a loader configured to support the object and allow a user to raise the object such that the object fastener contacts the extension fastener.” This “loader” is never depicted in the drawings, nor is its structure or even its manner of operation described anywhere in the specification: every mention of a “loader” in the specification appears to merely repeat the claim language verbatim. As neither the specification nor the drawings provide any description of the “loader” or the precise manner in which it operates, the claim is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 10-13, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston (US Patent No 4296925) in view of Ogle (US Patent No 20160067585).
Regarding claim 1, Alston discloses “a jump training device for evaluating and enhancing an athlete’s vertical jumping capability (see abstract, “This invention is a device for jump training of sport participants”), the jump training device comprising: a base having a front and a rear (base portion 11: see Fig. 1); a vertical extension […] affixed to the front of the base (guide tube 14), wherein the vertical extension comprises a first vertical section (guide tube 14), a second vertical section (support member 15) […] coupled to the base such that the second […] sections telescopically extend in the direction of the axis of the first vertical section (“Vertical beat board support member 15 is telescopically mounted within guide tube 14”); a top section (support arm 17) extending from the […] vertical section at an angle to the axis of the […] vertical section (“A generally horizontally disposed beat board support arm 17 is fixedly secured at one end to the top of vertical support member 15”; see Fig. 1); a flexible hanger having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is affixed to the top section such that the flexible hangar extends down from the top section (support cable 31); an extension fastener coupled to the second end of the hanger (female swivel connector 32); and an object fastener configured to detachably couple an object to the extension fastener (male swivel connector 33).”
However, Alston does not disclose that the vertical extension is “removably” affixed to the base or that there is a “third vertical section”; as Alston does not disclose a “third vertical section”, by extension Alston does not disclose a top section extending from a third vertical section (in Alston, the top section extends from the second vertical extension instead).
Ogle teaches a sports training apparatus for training athletes to throw or deliver a ball at an appropriate arc. Like Alston’s, Ogle’s device also includes a series of telescoping vertical sections/poles, with a horizontal section extending from the uppermost vertical section, allowing the height of the horizontal section to be adjusted. Notably, Ogle teaches a vertical section removably affixed to a base (see paragraph 29, “Pole base (4) is secured to the base plate (1) by four bolts”), and Ogle also teaches three telescopic vertical sections (see paragraph 29, “A second telescoping pole (6) is coaxially positioned within the first telescoping pole (5) […] A third telescoping pole (7) is coaxially positioned within the second telescoping pole (6)”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that removably affixing the vertical section to the base would make storing and transporting the apparatus more convenient by allowing the vertical section to be detached from the base, decreasing the height of the apparatus and allowing it to fit inside spaces it otherwise would not have been able to had the vertical section been permanently affixed to the base, as in the case of Alston’s device. In a similar vein, additional telescopic sections would further improve the convenience of storage and transport of the device: replacing one of the telescopic vertical sections with two nested telescopic vertical sections with the same maximum extended length ensures the maximum height of the device stays constant, maintaining its suitable for its intended use, while reducing the minimum length of the vertical section, allowing it to fit inside and/or through spaces it otherwise could not.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alston’s jump training device to have three telescopic vertical sections instead of two, as taught by Ogle, and to removably, instead of permanently, affix the vertical section to the base, as taught by Ogle, and they would have been motivated to do so to improve the convenience of storing and transporting the device, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1 wherein the object fastener is coupled to a harness configured to allow the object fastener to be affixed about the object or wherein the object fastener is embedded in the object (“A cable or other suitable tether means 37 is fixedly secured to connector 33 at one end and to ball 38 at its other end”; see Fig. 2).”
Regarding claim 3, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1, wherein the flexible hanger is a cable or a rope (“A cable means 31 is secured to the upper end of weight shaft 30, is trained over pulley wheels 27 and 25 and terminates at a female swivel connector 32”; see Fig. 1).”
Regarding claim 7, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1, wherein the base is configured to be set on a floor (see Fig. 1).”
However, Alston does not disclose “the vertical section is marked to indicate the total height of the extension fastener relative to the floor at different positions of the first vertical section, the second vertical section, and the third vertical extension relative to each other.”
Ogle teaches a sports training apparatus for training athletes to throw or deliver a ball at an appropriate arc. Like Alston’s, Ogle’s device also includes a series of telescoping vertical sections/poles, with a horizontal section extending from the uppermost vertical section, allowing the height of the horizontal section to be adjusted. Notably, Ogle teaches a vertical section removably affixed to a base (see paragraph 29, “Pole base (4) is secured to the base plate (1) by four bolts”), and Ogle also teaches three telescopic vertical sections (see paragraph 29, “A second telescoping pole (6) is coaxially positioned within the first telescoping pole (5) […] A third telescoping pole (7) is coaxially positioned within the second telescoping pole (6)”). Ogle also teaches marking the lengths of the second and third telescoping poles to allow a user to adjust the device to a desired height (see paragraph 53, “The second telescoping pole is marked along its length in one-inch increments for measuring purposes. The marks allow the user to view and set the height of the horizontal member” and 54, “A further embodiment provides for the third telescoping pole (57) to include marks (71) along its length in one-inch increments for measuring purposes”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that removably affixing the vertical section to the base would make storing and transporting the apparatus more convenient by allowing the vertical section to be detached from the base, decreasing the height of the apparatus and allowing it to fit inside spaces it otherwise would not have been able to had the vertical section been permanently affixed to the base, as in the case of Alston’s device. In a similar vein, additional telescopic sections would further improve the convenience of storage and transport of the device: replacing one of the telescopic vertical sections with two nested telescopic vertical sections with the same maximum extended length ensures the maximum height of the device stays constant, maintaining its suitable for its intended use, while reducing the minimum length of the vertical section, allowing it to fit inside and/or through spaces it otherwise could not.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alston’s jump training device to have three telescopic vertical sections instead of two, as taught by Ogle, and to removably, instead of permanently, affix the vertical section to the base, as taught by Ogle, and they would have been motivated to do so to improve the convenience of storing and transporting the device, with reasonable expectation of success.
Having made these modifications, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the resulting device so that the vertical extension is marked along its length, as taught by Ogle, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow users to view and set the height of the horizontal member of the device, as taught by Ogle, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1.”
However, Alston does not disclose “the vertical extension comprises at least one measuring indicator.”
Ogle teaches a sports training apparatus for training athletes to throw or deliver a ball at an appropriate arc. Like Alston’s, Ogle’s device also includes a series of telescoping vertical sections/poles, with a horizontal section extending from the uppermost vertical section, allowing the height of the horizontal section to be adjusted. Notably, Ogle teaches marking the lengths of the second and third telescoping poles to allow a user to adjust the device to a desired height (see paragraph 53, “The second telescoping pole is marked along its length in one-inch increments for measuring purposes. The marks allow the user to view and set the height of the horizontal member” and 54, “A further embodiment provides for the third telescoping pole (57) to include marks (71) along its length in one-inch increments for measuring purposes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alston’s jump training device so that the vertical extension is marked along its length, as taught by Ogle, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow users to view and set the height of the horizontal member of the device, as taught by Ogle, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1, wherein the base comprises at least one vertical support (stanchion 13) coupled to the at least one vertically telescoping section (guide tube 14) wherein the at least one vertical support is coupled to the base (“stanchion 13 is fixedly secured at one end to base 11”) wherein the base has at least one caster coupled to it (“Wheels 12, preferably of a caster type, are provided on the bottom of base 11”).”
Regarding claim 12, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1, wherein the object is a volleyball (“A tethered volleyball is used and set at a height […]”), football, baseball, basketball (“A tethered basketball is set at a height […]”), or tennis ball.”
Regarding claim 13, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1.”
However, Alston (in view of Ogle) does not disclose “the base is wider at the front than at the rear.”
Despite this, the choice of whether to make the front of the base wider than the rear is merely an aesthetic design choice that produces no unanticipated or novel result. The only apparent mechanical function of the base of a device such as that of the claimed invention and analogous devices, such as Alston’s, is to keep the device steady and upright, and in some case, to serve as an attachment point for “peripheral” parts such as caster wheels. To this end, as long as the base is capable of serving these functions, as virtually any sufficiently wide shape would, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that changing the shape of the base would not result in any material difference in the functionality of the device. Examiner notes that the specification itself does not disclose any particular advantage for the chosen shape, and even admits in paragraph 29 that “the base 60 can be any suitable shape or size and can be such as for example, rectangular, triangular, polygonal, circular, or the like in shape having more than one base section.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jump training device of Alston (in view of Ogle) so that the front of the base is wider than the rear, as doing so would amount to nothing more than an aesthetic design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Alston discloses “a method for evaluating and enhancing an athlete’s vertical jumping capability using a jump training device (see abstract, “This invention is a device for jump training of sport participants”), the method comprising: positioning a jump training device having a base (base portion 11: see Fig. 1); a vertical extension […] affixed to the base and having an adjustable height (guide tube 14), and a flexible hanger extending from the vertical section (support cable 31); providing an extension fastener to the vertical extension (female swivel connector 32) and an object fastener configured to detachably couple an object to the extension fastener (male swivel connector 33), adjusting the height of the flexible hangar (see “A tethered volleyball is used and set at a height so that the ball is approximately four inches lower than the player can reach with his best vertical jump”); and allowing a user to jump and interact with the object (“The player jumps up, spikes the ball with his right hand and then on every fourth bounce off the beat boards thereafter with alternate hands”).”
However, Alston does not disclose that the vertical extension is “removably” affixed to the base.
Ogle teaches a sports training apparatus for training athletes to throw or deliver a ball at an appropriate arc. Like Alston’s, Ogle’s device also includes a series of telescoping vertical sections/poles, with a horizontal section extending from the uppermost vertical section, allowing the height of the horizontal section to be adjusted. Notably, Ogle teaches a vertical section removably affixed to a base (see paragraph 29, “Pole base (4) is secured to the base plate (1) by four bolts”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that removably affixing the vertical section to the base would make storing and transporting the apparatus more convenient by allowing the vertical section to be detached from the base, decreasing the height of the apparatus and allowing it to fit inside spaces it otherwise would not have been able to had the vertical section been permanently affixed to the base, as in the case of Alston’s device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alston’s jump training device to removably, instead of permanently, affix the vertical section to the base, as taught by Ogle, and they would have been motivated to do so to improve the convenience of storing and transporting the device, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the method of claim 16, wherein the flexible hanger comprises a cable or rope (support cable 31), and the method further comprises selecting the flexible hanger material to allow controlled movement of the object during the athlete’s jump (see “The constant resistance of the weights 29 will, of course, force the player to maintain firm control throughout the rebound movement and not just at the top. Also the ball can be made to swing thereby forcing the player to time his jumps and maintain eye contact with the ball”).”
Regarding claim 19, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the method of claim 16, further comprising the step of setting the base of the jump training device on a floor (see Fig. 1).”
However, Alston does not disclose “adjusting the vertical extension to mark the height of the object relative to the floor for measurement purposes.”
Ogle teaches a sports training apparatus for training athletes to throw or deliver a ball at an appropriate arc. Like Alston’s, Ogle’s device also includes a series of telescoping vertical sections/poles, with a horizontal section extending from the uppermost vertical section, allowing the height of the horizontal section to be adjusted. Notably, Ogle teaches marking the lengths of the second and third telescoping poles to allow a user to adjust the device to a desired height (see paragraph 53, “The second telescoping pole is marked along its length in one-inch increments for measuring purposes. The marks allow the user to view and set the height of the horizontal member” and 54, “A further embodiment provides for the third telescoping pole (57) to include marks (71) along its length in one-inch increments for measuring purposes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alston’s jump training device so that the vertical extension is marked along its length, as taught by Ogle, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow users to view and set the height of the horizontal member of the device, as taught by Ogle, with reasonable expectation of success.
8. Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston (US Patent No 4296925) in view of Ogle (US Patent No 20160067585) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Day (GB Patent No 2608790).
Regarding claim 4, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1.”
However, Alston (in view of Ogle) does not disclose “the extension fastener is a first magnet having a first polarity and the object fastener is a second magnet having a second polarity configured to be attracted to the extension fastener.”
Day teaches a sports training device, which, like Alston’s and Ogle’s device, also consists of a vertical member affixed to a base with a horizontal member extending from the vertical member. Like Alston’s device, Day’s device also features a ball attached to the end of the horizontal member (see Fig. 3). Notably, Day teaches attaching the ball to the horizontal member by means of a magnet installed in the horizontal member and a magnet of the opposing polarity installed in the ball (see paragraph 38, “The head unit 18 is disposed at the distal end of the arm 16 and as shown in Figure 2 includes a downwardly facing magnet 26. The head unit 18 is thus spaced away from the base 12 and the support post 14. A training ball 30 for the device 10 is fitted with a corresponding magnet 28 at an internal surface thereof, which will allow the training ball 30 to be attachable to the head unit 18 in a removable manner”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jump training device of Alston (in view of Ogle) to use a pair of magnets to attach the ball to the horizontal member, as taught by Day, instead of the female/male swivel connectors used in Alston’s device, as this amounts to a simple substitution of one element known in the art (male/female swivel connector joint) for another element known in the art (magnets), and the results of this substitution would have been predictable, as both elements would have been very well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and mechanically simple enough to the point where it would not require extraordinary creativity to modify the design of Alston’s device to replace the male/female swivel connectors with a pair of magnets which serve an identical function.
Regarding claim 5, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1.”
However, Alston (in view of Ogle) does not disclose “the extension fastener […] and the object fastener are opposite portions of a hook and loop fastener.”
Day teaches a sports training device, which, like Alston’s and Ogle’s device, also consists of a vertical member affixed to a base with a horizontal member extending from the vertical member. Like Alston’s device, Day’s device also features a ball attached to the end of the horizontal member (see Fig. 3). Notably, Day teaches attaching the ball to the horizontal member using hook and loop patches attached to the horizontal member and the end of the ball (see paragraph 39, “Other removable attachment means 27 are also possible such as hook and loop patches (VelcroTM)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jump training device of Alston (in view of Ogle) to use hook and loop patches to attach the ball to the horizontal member, as taught by Day, instead of the female/male swivel connectors used in Alston’s device, as this amounts to a simple substitution of one element known in the art (male/female swivel connector joint) for another element known in the art (hook and loop patches), and the results of this substitution would have been predictable, as both elements would have been very well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and mechanically simple enough to the point where it would not require extraordinary creativity to modify the design of Alston’s device to replace the male/female swivel connectors with a pair of hook and loop fastener patches which serve an identical function.
Regarding claim 6, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1.”
However, Alston (in view of Ogle) does not disclose “one of the extension fastener and the object fastener is a magnet and the other of the extension fastener and the object fastener is a ferrous metal operative to provide the retaining force.”
Day teaches a sports training device, which, like Alston’s and Ogle’s device, also consists of a vertical member affixed to a base with a horizontal member extending from the vertical member. Like Alston’s device, Day’s device also features a ball attached to the end of the horizontal member (see Fig. 3). Notably, Day teaches attaching the ball to the horizontal member by means of a magnet installed in the horizontal member and a metal piece installed in the ball (see paragraph 39, “The magnetic removable attachment means between the head unit 18 and the training ball 30 can alternatively include a magnet on one and a metal piece on the other (e.g. magnet on head unit 18 and metal piece on the training ball 30)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jump training device of Alston (in view of Ogle) to use a magnet and a piece of ferrous metal to attach the ball to the horizontal member, as taught by Day, instead of the female/male swivel connectors used in Alston’s device, as this amounts to a simple substitution of one element known in the art (male/female swivel connector joint) for another element known in the art (permanent magnet and ferromagnetic material), and the results of this substitution would have been predictable, as both elements would have been very well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and mechanically simple enough to the point where it would not require extraordinary creativity to modify the design of Alston’s device to replace the male/female swivel connectors with a permanent magnet/ferromagnet pair which serve an identical function.
9. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston (US Patent No 4296925) in view of Ogle (US Patent No 20160067585) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VanBenschoten et al (US Patent No 20130200246).
Regarding claim 9, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1.”
However, Alston (in view of Ogle) does not disclose “a weight retainer on the rear of the base.”
VanBenschoten et al, henceforth VanBenschoten, teaches an apparatus for stabilizing and supporting a pole, which features a base analogous to that seen in Alston, Ogle, and the claimed invention. Notably, VanBenschoten teaches altering the weight of the base so that the back end of the base weighs more than the front, shifting the center of gravity of the pole and providing lateral stability (see paragraph 31, “ For example, as shown in FIGS. 15-16, a back end 36' of a base 14' can be made to weigh more than a front end 34' of the base 14', shifting the center of gravity of the base 14 towards the back end 36' of the base 14' and allowing the back end 36' of the base 14' to provide lateral stability thereto. This can be accomplished through the use of a counterweight 70 positioned in the base, as shown in FIG. 16”). VanBenschoten teaches that this may be achieved through the use of a “weight reservoir”, which Examiner holds in analogous to the weight retainer of the claimed invention (“the base 14' can include a reservoir or opening formed therein to receive a material having the proper weight to achieve the desired weight distribution”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jump training device of Alston (in view of Ogle) to include a “weight reservoir” for receiving weights, as taught by VanBenschoten, and they would have been motivated to do so to shift the center of gravity of the device and provide lateral stability, as taught by VanBenschoten, with reasonable expectation of success.
10. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston (US Patent No 4296925) in view of Ogle (US Patent No 20160067585) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parr et al (US Patent No 5316290030).
Regarding claim 15, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the jump training device of claim 1.”
However, Alston (in view of Ogle) does not disclose “the vertical extension is rotatable relative to the base.”
Parr et al, henceforth Parr, teaches a portable basketball goal assembly which, like Alston’s and Ogle’s devices, features a base with a vertical section and a horizontal member extending from the vertical section. As Parr’s device is designed to be used for playing basketball and Alston’s and Ogle’s devices are designed to be used for training basketball players, they are considered as belonging to analogous fields of art. Notably, Parr’s device features rotatable joints attaching the support members to the base, which allows the device to be collapsed into a compact shape for storage and transport (“The two support members and backboard and goal are all rotatable relative to the base and can be collapsed into a flat, compact package in the pickup truck for storage and/or transport”). Although the telescoping sections of Alston’s and Ogle’s devices also allow those devices to be collapsed into a more compact shape, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that specifically modifying the attachment point of the first vertical section of Alston’s or Ogle’s devices to the base to be rotatable relative to the base, as in the case of Parr’s device, could be combined with the telescoping feature to make the device pack into an even more compact shape, i.e., the uppermost vertical sections are retracted inside the first vertical section, which is then folded over to allow the device to be transported as a completely flat package.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jump training device of Alston (in view of Ogle) so that the first vertical section is attached to the base by a rotatable joint instead of being welded to the base, as taught by Parr, and they would have been motivated to do so to improve the convenience of storing and transporting the device, with reasonable expectation of success.
11. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alston (US Patent No 4296925) in view of Ogle (US Patent No 20160067585) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuentes (US Patent No 20100130312).
Regarding claim 17, Alston (in view of Ogle) discloses “the method of claim 16.”
However, Alston (in view of Ogle) does not disclose “providing a harness configured to secure the object to the object fastener and securing the object to the flexible hanger using the object fastener embedded in or coupled to the object.”
Fuentes teaches a sports training apparatus which, like the devices of Alston, Ogle, and the claimed invention, features a base with a vertical extension and a horizontal member attached to the vertical extension from which a ball is suspended. Notably, Fuentes teaches that a harness may be used to secure the ball to the horizontal member (see Fig. 11 and paragraph 34, “FIG. 11 is a view of a third example of a ball attachment 42 using a harness 44 configured to attach to a separately obtained ball”). Fuentes also teaches that using a harness to attach the ball to the sports training device allows the use of normal, unmodified balls (see paragraph 34, “The harness 44 secures a separately obtained ball 10 that would not need a pre fixed loop 38 or double loop 38A, to attach to the length of tether 8”). One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that this is quite advantageous compared to Alston’s device, which must use specially-prepared balls with connectors embedded inside, and would also recognize that Alston’s device could easily be modified to use a harness as a means of securing the ball, as this would only require replacing the tether means 37 with another tether which terminates in a harness instead of a loop attached to a ball.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jump training device of Alston (in view of Ogle) to use a harness for securing the ball, as taught by Fuentes, and they would have been motivated to do so to allow the device to work with normal, unprepared balls, as taught by Fuentes, making it more convenient to replace the ball in the event that it gets lost or damaged and allowing the ball to be used for regular play instead of only for training.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH HAROLD JOHANSSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:30 to 6:30.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571)270-7625. 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.
/K.H.J./
Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/WILLIAM H MCCULLOCH JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights