DETAILED ACTION
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, the “two sets of hanging net parts with different heights” of claim 5 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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, lines 5-6 claims “the frame body…further comprises two volleyball nets”. However, claim 1, line 4 claims “the vertical rod frame configured to connect with a volley ball net”. As such claim 5 appears to be indefinite because proper antecedent has not been established and/or the language is confusing. The Examiner can recommend that applicant amend claim 1, line 4 to state “at least one volleyball net”. Claim 5 can then be amended to state “the at least one volleyball net comprises two volleyball nets”. However, as the claim 5 is written right now, it would appear that clam 5 requires three volleyball nets: one from claim 1, and two from claim 5. Claim 5, line 5 also claims “the frame body comprises four sets of horizontal rod frames and vertical rod frames”. This limitation is previously presented in claim 4 (from which claim 5 depends) which states “the frame body comprises at least four sets of horizontal rod frames and vertical rod frames”. As the limitation is redundant, applicant can simply delete it from claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 suffers from the same issue above. Claim 9, lines 1-2 claims “at least one volleyball net”. However, claim 1, line 4 already refers to “a volleyball net”. Claim 9 should be amended to accurately show proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosekrans, Jr. (herein “Rosekrans”; US Pat. No. 3,794,322) in view of Cappello et al. (herein “Cappello”; US Pub. No. 2014/0121040 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosekrans discloses a portable water volleyball instrument (Fig. 3), comprising, a frame body (Fig. 3, items 26, 28, 12, 14), and an anti-drift mechanism (Fig. 3, items 36/32) the frame body comprises a horizontal rod frame (Fig. 3, item 14 or 12) and a vertical rod frame (Fig. 3, item 28 or 26); the vertical rod frame is configured to connect with a volleyball net (Fig. 3; noting this is obvious), and the horizontal rod frame is connected to the vertical rod frame (Fig. 3; item 12 or 14 connected to item 26 or 28); the anti-drift mechanism is connected to the frame body (Fig. 3, item 36/32). It is noted that Rosekrans does not specifically disclose a storage box, the horizontal rod frame and the vertical rod frame are capable of being folded, extended, or disassembled for storage; the storage box comprises a first connection part configured to be detachably connected with the horizontal rod frame; the storage box comprises a storage chamber configured to store the frame body and the anti-drift mechanism, and the storage chamber is a sealed chamber in a closed state so that the storage box serves as a floating body for the frame body. However, Rosekrans clearly discloses the use of a flotation device connected to the frame (Fig. 3, item 40 and 42). In addition, Cappello discloses a similar net wherein the system includes a storage box (par. [0017]), the horizontal rod frame and the vertical rod frame are capable of being folded, extended, or disassembled for storage (par. [0021]-[0022]; noting adjustable and/or telescoping frame, see also par. [0016]; noting a removable frame); the storage box comprises a first connection part configured to be detachably connected with the horizontal rod frame (Fig. 2 and par. [0023]); the storage box comprises a storage chamber configured to store the frame body and the anti-drift mechanism (par. [0017]; noting “used as a carrying case for a variety equipment” makes obvious this functional language, see also par. [0020]), and the storage chamber is a sealed chamber in a closed state so that the storage box serves as a floating body for the frame body (par. [0017]; noting “a lid may be included to seal training device” also makes obvious this functional language, see also par. [0020]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rosekrans to use a storage box, the horizontal rod frame and the vertical rod frame are capable of being folded, extended, or disassembled for storage; the storage box comprises a first connection part configured to be detachably connected with the horizontal rod frame; the storage box comprises a storage chamber configured to store the frame body and the anti-drift mechanism, and the storage chamber is a sealed chamber in a closed state so that the storage box serves as a floating body for the frame body as taught and suggested by Cappello because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a frame and net with a flotation device and a frame and net attached to a storage device that can be sealed) according to known methods (attaching the frame and net to the storage device) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a frame and net, the frame net attached to a storage device that can function as a float because it can be “sealed”, but also allow for storage of the frame and net inside).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Rosekrans and Cappello disclose that the frame
body comprises at least two sets of horizontal rod frames and vertical rod frames (Rosekrans: Fig. 3, items 26/28 being one set of vertical rods, and items 12/14 being another set of horizontal rods; the Examiner broadly construing this to mean at least “two sets” total); there are at least two first connection parts that are located on an outside of the storage box (Cappello: Fig. 2, see annotated below, proximate items 130; noting the “connection part” can simply be the part of the box that connects to the frame on either side).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Rosekrans and Cappello disclose that the storage box is symmetrically arranged along a first centerline, and the at least two first connection parts are symmetrically arranged along the first centerline (Cappello: Fig. 2; noting this is obvious).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combined Rosekrans and Cappello disclose that at least one volleyball net (Rosekrans: Fig. 1, item 30; noting this is obvious), and the volleyball net is capable of being stored in the storage chamber (Cappello: par. [0017]; noting “used as an equipment case” makes this functional language possible); the storage box is made of plastic (Cappello: par. [0016]; noting “plastic”); at least one handle is provided on an outer side of the storage box (Cappello: par. [0017]; noting “handle”).
Claims 4, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosekrans, Jr. (herein “Rosekrans”; US Pat. No. 3,794,322) in view of Cappello et al. (herein “Cappello”; US Pub. No. 2014/0121040 A1) and in further view of Saphire (US Pub. No. 2013/005515 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined Rosekrans and Cappello disclose that the storage box is further symmetrically arranged along a second centerline (Capello: Fig. 2 above). It is noted that the combined Rosekrans and Cappello do not specifically disclose that the at least two first connection parts are symmetrically arranged along the second centerline; the frame body comprise at least four sets of horizontal rod frames and vertical rod frames. However, Cappello discloses using a single net with a first connection parts (Fig. 2 above). In addition, Saphire makes obvious the ability to use two perpendicular nets that are symmetrically positioned (Fig. 1). Finally, regarding using four sets of horizonal and vertical rod frames, it has been held that the duplication of parts is not given patentable weight unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combined Rosekrans and Cappello to use two perpendicular nets as taught by Saphire because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (two nets perpendicular to each other) for another (a single net) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to use a net, the net being two nets perpendicular to each other). In addition, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the using four sets of horizontal and vertical rod frames would not produce unexpected results: that is, the additional and second set of vertical and horizontal rod frames would a second frame and net to the storage box much like the first frame and net.
Regarding claim 5, the combined Rosekrans, Cappello, and Saphire disclose that the first centerline is perpendicular to the second centerline (Cappello: Fig. 2 above; noting this is also obvious given Saphire: Fig. 1); the vertical rod frames are provided with at least two sets of hanging net parts with different heights (Saphire: par. [0048]; noting the poles are “adjustable” for height, making obvious this limitation); the frame body comprises four sets of horizontal rod frames and vertical rod frames (noting this exact limitation is addressed above, see claim objection above), and further comprises two volleyball nets (Saphire: Figs. 5 and 6; showing the use of two nets); middles of the two volleyball nets are provided with detachable connectors that are capable of being connected to each other, so that when the two volleyball nets are connected to the hanging net parts of each vertical rod frame, a cross net is formed (Saphire: Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, the combined Rosekrans and Cappello disclose that the anti-drift mechanism comprises at least one set of anchor ropes, anchor weights, and fastening portions, two ends of the anchor ropes are respectively connected to the anchor weights and the fastening portions; the horizontal rod frame is provided with areas that are matched with the fastening portions (Rosekrans: Fig. 3; noting the ropes appear to be tied to the frame via what the Examiner considers a “fastening portion”; the other rope ends are secure to the anchors). It is noted that the combined Rosekrans and Cappello do not specifically disclose ends of the rope attached to climbing buckles and a corresponding buckle holes in the frame. However, Saphire makes obvious the ability to use a bunch of different mechanical fasteners including buckles to create attachments (par. [0040]; the Examiner noting that using a buckle, a corresponding buckle hole would be obvious given the disclosure of a buckle). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing to modify the combined Rosekrans and Cappello to use buckles and buckle holes as a method of attachment as taught and suggested by Saphire because doing so would be a simple substitution of one element (a mechanical fastener in the form of buckles and buckle holes) for another (a fastener in the form of a rope tied around the frame) to predictable results (the continued ability to secure a rope to a frame, the mechanical fastener being buckles and corresponding buckle holes). Finally, regarding using two sets of anchor ropes and corresponding hardware instead of one, it has been held that the duplication of parts is not given patentable weight unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the using two sets of anchor ropes and corresponding hardware would not produce unexpected results: that is, the second set of anchor ropes and corresponding hardware would attach the frame to the anchors via a rope much like the first set of anchor ropes and corresponding hardware.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 claims “the horizontal rod frames comprise a plurality of concave groove bars that are hinged to each other; widths of the plurality of concave groove bars are gradually decreased, so that the plurality of concave groove bars are capable of being folded and stored”. Secondary reference Cappello discloses the use of a telescoping frame for adjustment (par. [0021]), and not a foldable frame that has concave groove bars that gradually decrease. A POSA would not have looked to further solve the problem of creating an adjustable frame using “foldable” arms because Cappello already teaches a solution in the form of a telescoping arms/frame (i.e. already provides a solution to the problem to be solved).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (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 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.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
7/15/26
Prosecution Insights