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 .
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 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the poles" in lines 3, 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “The poles” should be changed to “the plurality of poles”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the poles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “The poles” should be changed to “the plurality of poles”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the poles" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “The poles” should be changed to “the plurality of poles”.
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.
Claims (1-7, 10-11), (12-14, 16-18), (19-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (8,430,772) in view of Simpson (3,738,653).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a paddle ball game system (12; Fig 1; col 2, In 56-59; col 7, In 3-10) comprising:
a plurality of poles (the plurality of posts 84, only one of which is marked in Fig 1; col 5, In 4-7);
a base (14; Fig 1; col 2, In 56-59; col 3, In 1-4) including openings (openings 86 in the base 14 for receiving the posts 84, where only one of the openings 86 is marked in Fig 1; Fig 1; col. 5, In 4-7)
a net (82; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) extending upward about a periphery (a periphery of the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) of the base (the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10); the plurality of poles (the plurality of posts 84, only one of which is marked in Fig 1; col 5, In 4-7) are received in openings (the posts 84 received in respective openings 86; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-7) for supporting the net (82; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-7);
at least one paddle (a paddle not shown in Fig 1; col 7, In 3-10); and
at least one ball (a ball not shown in Fig 1; col. 7, In 3-10) provided for being hit against the action surface (the central section 26) with the paddle (the paddle, not shown in Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10, 16-20; col 7, In 3-22).
Jones shows the plurality of poles (the plurality of posts 84) extend upward (the plurality of posts 84 extending upward from the base 14; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 5, In 4-7) from the action surface (the central section 26 of the landing zone or bounce area 20; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 5, In 4-7). Jones discloses the claimed device with the exception of the poles extending upward at an angle from the base such that the net expands upward and outward from the action surface. However, as disclosed by Simpson discloses a system Figs 1, 2, 5, 6 shows that the walls are sloped i.e. angled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided sloped or angled walls formed between Jones’ poles given that Simpson teaches that the sloped walls provide a wider opening and produce a rebound surface that is less predictable during game play.
Regarding claim 2, Jones shows the openings (openings 86 in the base 14 for receiving the posts 84) for the poles (the plurality of posts 84) are disposed at an intersection between sides of the base (base 14, where the openings 86 are disposed at an intersection between sides 28 of the base 14, where only one of four sides 28 are marked in Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col. 3, In 21-25; col 5, In 4-7).
Regarding claim 3, Jones shows base (14) is generally a polygonal shape (a generally square shape of base 14; Fig 1; col 3, In 1-4) and the net (82) which is polygonal (a generally square shape of the net 82 when viewed in plan; Fig 1; col 3, In 1-4; col 5, In 4-10, 12-14).
Regarding claim 4, Jones as modified in view of Simpson further show the angle is between 30 degrees and 75 degrees (Simpson shows the walls are angled between 15 and 45 degrees and more preferably 30 degrees (col 4, In 30-41).
Regarding claim 5, Jones as modified above further shows an opening width defined across an upper end of the net is between 1 ½ and 3 times a width of the base (the opening width is dependent of the angle, since the modified Jones reference discloses the claimed range of angles then the opening width would also fall within the above range).
Regarding claim 6, Jones shows an action surface (an action surface including the central section 26 of the landing zone or bounce area 20; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 3, In 1-4; col 5, In 4-10) disposed within the periphery of the base.
Claim 7, Jones shows the action surfaces (the central section 26 of the landing zone or bounce area 20) is an integral part of the base (Figs 1-2 shows the action surface is integral with part of base).
Regarding claim 10, Jones shows a back side of the base includes an outer wall disposed about an outer periphery and at least one inner rib strengthening the action surface (Fig 5 is a bottom of the table, the bottom or back side of the table includes an outer wall (perimeter under table rails 34) and at least one inner rib (any one of cross beam sections 38, 40, 42, 44, 46).
Regarding claim 11, Jones shows legs (the plurality of legs 18, only one of which is marked in Fig 1; col 2, In 59-60) for supporting the base (14) a distance above a support surface (a floor below the end cap 72 of each of the plurality of legs 18, where the legs 18 support the base 14 a distance above the floor that is below the end caps 72; Fig 1; col 2, In 59-60; col 4, In 43-48).
Regarding claim 12, Jones discloses a paddle ball game system (12; Fig 1; col 2, In 56-59; col 7, In 3-10) comprising:
a base (14; Fig 1; col 2, In 56-59; col 3, In 1-4) including openings (openings 86 in the base 14 for receiving the posts 84, where only one of the openings 86 is marked in Fig 1; Fig 1; col. 5, In 4-7);
a plurality of poles (the plurality of posts 84, only one of which is marked in Fig 1; col 5, In 4-7);
a net (82; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) supported by the plurality of poles and extending upward about a periphery (a periphery of the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) of the base (the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10);
at least one ball (a ball not shown in Fig 1; col. 7, In 3-10) provided for being hit against the action surface (the central section 26) with the paddle (the paddle, not shown in Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10, 16-20; col 7, In 3-22).
Jones shows the plurality of poles (the plurality of posts 84) extend upward (the plurality of posts 84 extending upward from the base 14; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 5, In 4-7) from the action surface (the central section 26 of the landing zone or bounce area 20; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 5, In 4-7). Jones discloses the claimed device with the exception of the poles extending upward at an angle from the base such that the net expands upward and outward from the action surface. However, as disclosed by Simpson discloses a system Figs 1, 2, 5, 6 shows that the walls are sloped i.e. angled. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided sloped or angled walls formed between Jones’ poles given that Simpson teaches that the sloped walls provide a wider opening and produce a rebound surface that is less predictable during game play.
Regarding claim 13, Jones as modified in view of Simpson further show the angle is between 30 degrees and 75 degrees (Simpson shows the walls are angled between 15 and 45 degrees and more preferably 30 degrees (col 4, In 30-41).
Regarding claim 14 Jones as modified above further shows an opening width defined across an upper end of the net is between 1 ½ and 3 times a width of the base (the opening width is dependent of the angle, since the modified Jones reference discloses the claimed range of angles then the opening width would also fall within the above range).
Regarding claim 16, Jones shows legs (the plurality of legs 18, only one of which is marked in Fig 1; col 2, In 59-60) for supporting the base (14) a distance above a support surface (a floor below the end cap 72 of each of the plurality of legs 18, where the legs 18 support the base 14 a distance above the floor that is below the end caps 72; Fig 1; col 2, In 59-60; col 4, In 43-48).
Regarding claim 17, Jones shows at least one paddle (a paddle not shown in Fig 1; col 7, In 3-10).
Claim 18, Jones shows the outer periphery (a periphery of the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) of the base (the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) surrounds a surface for rebounding the at least one ball upward out of the net (82; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10; (32; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10, 16-20; col 7, In 3-22).
Regarding claim 19, Jones discloses a method of playing a paddle ball game (a method of playing a paddle ball game with the system 12; Fig 1; col 2, In 56-59; col 7, In 3-10) comprising:
serving a ball (a ball, not shown in Fig 1; col 7, In 3-10) by hitting a ball (the ball not shown in Fig 1) onto an action surface (an action surface including the central section 26 of the landing zone or bounce area 20; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 3, In 1-4; col 5, In 4-10) surrounded by a net (82; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10, 16-20; col 7, In 3-8, 11-15: "Game play is initiated by a legal serve, which is accomplished by hitting the game ball with a paddle to initially hit the player's own playing section 28 such that the game ball bounces into the landing zone/bounce area 20 and then into the opponent's playing section 28"), wherein the net extends upward and outward (note: outward does not necessarily mean at an angle” from a base;
hitting the ball (the ball, not shown in Fig 1) after the ball (the ball, not shown in Fig 1) bounces from the action surface (the central section 26) back onto the action surface (the central section 26) to an opposing player (an opposing player that returns the ball, not shown in Fig 1; col 7, In 15-19: "A legal hit occurs after a legal serve, and the ball bounces up from the table and then the receiving player returns the ball into the landing zone/bounce area 20 and then into the opponent's playing section 28"); and
alternating between opposing players (alternate legal hits by opposing players in a two person or four player game; col 7, In 3-22) hitting of the ball (the ball, not shown in Fig 1) until one player fails to bounce the ball (the ball, not shown in Fig 1) off the action surface (the central section 26) and out of the net (32; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10, 16-20; col 7, In 3-22).
Jones shows the net (the plurality of posts 84) extend upward (the plurality of posts 84 extending upward from the base 14; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 5, In 4-7) from the action surface (the central section 26 of the landing zone or bounce area 20; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 5, In 4-7). Jones discloses the claimed device with the exception of the poles extending outward at an angle from the base such that the net expands upward and outward from the action surface. However, as disclosed by Simpson discloses a system Figs 1, 2, 5, 6 shows that the walls are sloped i.e. angled outward. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided sloped or angled walls formed between Jones’ poles given that Simpson teaches that the sloped walls provide a wider opening and produce a rebound surface that is less predictable during game play.
Claim 20, Jones as modified above shows the action surface (an action surface including the central section 26 of the landing zone or bounce area 20; Fig 1; col 2, In 60-62; col 3, In 1-4; col 5, In 4-10) is defined within an outer periphery (a periphery of the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) of the base (the central section 26; Fig 1; col 5, In 4-10) and hitting the ball (the ball, not shown in Fig 1) off the action surface to an opposing player includes hitting the ball at an angle off the action surface so that the ball is not caught in the net.
Claims 8-9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view Attenweiler (US 2015/0335993A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jones discloses the claimed device with the exception of base including an inner storage compartment for storage of the parts of the game system. However, as disclosed by Attenweiler (the base (12) includes an inner storage compartment (a storage compartment 90, defined by an underside of each of the rectangular portions 14 and 16 and by the walls 101 for storing at least the legs 72; Fig 1, 3-4; para [0015], [0035]) for storage of parts (parts including at least legs 72; Fig 1. 3-4; para [0035], [0037]) of the system (10; Fig 1, 3-4; para [0035], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a storage compartment for Jones’ system given that Attenweiler teaches such facilitates transportation of the system.
Regarding claim 9, Jones as modified in view Attenweiler further shows the base (12) comprises two halves (rectangular portions 14 and 16; Fig 1; para [0015]) attached to each other by hinges (hinges attaching the portion 14 to the portion 16 along respective abutting edges 14a and 16a; Fig 1; para [0015]) such that the two halves (rectangular portions 14 and 16) are foldable onto each other (the rectangular portions 14 and 16 are foldable from an extended position shown in Figs 1 & 4-5 to a folded configuration shown in Fig 2, where Fig 3 further illustrates the system 10 in a partially folded configuration; Fig 1-5; para [0015], [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, Jones as modified in view Attenweiler further shows the base (12) comprises two halves (rectangular portions 14 and 16; Fig 1; para [0015]) attached to each other by hinges (hinges attaching the portion 14 to the portion 16 along respective abutting edges 14a and 16a; Fig 1; para [0015]) such that the two halves (rectangular portions 14 and 16) are foldable onto each other (the rectangular portions 14 and 16 are foldable from an extended position shown in Figs 1 & 4-5 to a folded configuration shown in Fig 2, where Fig 3 further illustrates the system 10 in a partially folded configuration; Fig 1-5; para [0015], [0020]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moran (US2021/0121756 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thur, Fri 10:00am to 6:00pm, Wed 10:00-4:00, Tue OFF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
25 September 2024
