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 § 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore (US 2019/0262680) in view of Bruno (US 4813684).
Regarding claim 1, Fiore discloses a pickleball training net device (Figure 1, element 100), comprising a base support (Figure 1, element 104);
wherein the base support is rotatably connected (Figure 1, element 13; Figure 9, element 140) with a training net (Figure 1, element 8), and the base support is provided with a support component configured to support the training net (Figure 2, elements 17, 18, and 19, 20, 21, and 22).
However, Fiore does not explicitly disclose a training net configured to rotate at an angle in a range from 0 to 360 degrees relative to the base support.
Furthermore, Bruno, teaches a training target configured to rotate at an angle in a range from 0 to 360 degrees relative to a base support (col. 6, lies 3-50). The combination of Fiore in view of Bruno includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Fiore to incorporate the teachings of Bruno to provide a pickleball training net device, comprising a base support; wherein the base support is rotatably connected with a training net, the training net is configured to rotate at an angle in a range from 0 to 360 degrees relative to the base support, and the base support is provided with a support component configured to support the training net.
Claim(s) 2, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore (US 2019/0262680) in view of Bruno (US 4813684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2026/0014438) and Gu (US 2023/0310958).
Regarding claim 2, Fiore in view of Bruno teaches the pickleball training net device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a device wherein the training net comprises an outer frame, a larger-aperture net surface and a smaller-aperture net surface are adjacently disposed in a region defined by the outer frame, an area of the larger-aperture net surface is equal to an area of the smaller-aperture net surface, a supporting main rod is disposed between the larger-aperture net surface and the smaller-aperture net surface, and the training net is configured to rotate to select a target net surface from the larger-aperture net surface and the smaller-aperture net surface for use.
Furthermore, Gu teaches a net device (Figure 3), wherein the training net (Figure 3, element 7) comprises an outer frame (Figure 1, elements 1 and 2), a pair of nets adjacently disposed in a region defined by the outer frame (“arranged in vertical direction” Paragraph [0027]), an area of the larger-aperture net surface is equal to an area of the smaller-aperture net surface (Figure 2-3, element 7; note the nets are the same area, allowing them to be assembled vertically or horizontally), and a supporting main rod is disposed between the net surfaces (Figure 3, note the supporting rod between the two net surfaces). Gu does not teach a larger-aperture net surface and a smaller-aperture net surface, or a training net that is configured to rotate to select a target net surface from the larger-aperture net surface and the smaller-aperture net surface for use. Gu reveals that it is known in the art of rebounding training nets to provide an outer frame comprising a pair of nets of equal area that are vertically arranged with a support rod disposed between them to allow a player to choose which net to use for training. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the training net device of Fiore in view of Bruno with a pair of nets of equal area that are vertically arranged with a support rod disposed between them like that of Zhang in order to allow a player to choose their net during training.
Additionally, Zhang teaches a larger-aperture net surface (Figure 1, element 14) and a smaller-aperture net surface (Figure 1, element 12), and a training net that is configured to rotate to select a target net surface from the larger-aperture net surface and the smaller-aperture net surface for use (“selectively rotated”, paragraph [0022], line 11-14). Zhang reveals that it is known in the art of rebounding training nets to provide different nets with different sized apertures to allow a player to choose their rebound efficiency for training. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the training net device of Fiore in view of Bruno and Gu with a training net that is configured to rotate to select a target net surface from a larger-aperture net surface and a smaller-aperture net surface for use like that of Zhang in order to allow a player to choose their rebound efficiency during training.
Regarding claim 6, Fiore in view of Bruno teaches the pickleball training net device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a device wherein the base support comprises two side rods spaced apart; a rear rod is disposed between the two side rods, and two ends of the rear rod are detachably connected to the two side rods respectively; and two upright rods are vertically disposed on top ends of the two side rods, respectively; and two ends of the training net are rotatably connected to top ends of the two upright rods, respectively.
Furthermore, Gu teaches a base support (Figure 5, elements 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8) that comprises two side rods (Figure 3 and 5, element 3) spaced apart; a rear rod (refer to annotated figure below) is disposed between the two side rods, and two ends of the rear rod are detachably connected to the two side rods (Figure 3, note rear rod connected to side rods 3) respectively; and two upright rods (Figure 5, element 1) are vertically disposed on top ends of the two side rods (Figure 5, note upright rods 1 connected to the side rods 3 at the sleeve 6), respectively; and two ends of the training net are rotatably connected to top ends of the two upright rods (Note the net rotatably connected to the top of the upright rods 1 at the sleeve 5), respectively.
The combination of Fiore in view of Bruno and Gu includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the base of Fiore in view of Bruno to incorporate the teachings of Gu to provide a base support for a pickleball training net device, wherein the base comprises two side rods spaced apart; a rear rod is disposed between the two side rods, and two ends of the rear rod are detachably connected to the two side rods respectively; and two upright rods are vertically disposed on top ends of the two side rods, respectively; and two ends of the training net are rotatably connected to top ends of the two upright rods, respectively.
Regarding claim 7, Fiore in view of Bruno teaches the pickleball training net device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a device wherein the training net is provided with rings, and the rings are configured to connect the training net and the outer frame.
Furthermore, Gu teaches a net training device wherein the training net (Figure 3, element 7) is provided with rings (Figure 3, element 12), and the rings are configured to connect the training net and the outer frame (paragraph [0024], lines 1-6).
The combination of Fiore in view of Bruno and Gu includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the base of Fiore in view of Bruno to incorporate the teachings of Gu to provide a base support for a pickleball training net device, wherein the training net is provided with rings, and the rings are configured to connect the training net and the outer frame.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore (US 2019/0262680) in view of Bruno (US 4813684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fedon (US 11819747).
Regarding claim 3, Fiore in view of Bruno teaches the pickleball training net device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the support component comprising: a first support rod, wherein the first support rod is rotatably connected to the base support; a second support rod, wherein the second support rod is connected with the first support rod in a plug-in manner; a locking member, wherein the locking member is configured to lock the first support rod with the second support rod; and a positioning member, wherein the positioning member abuts against the outer frame of the training net and is configured to limit the outer frame of the training net, and the positioning member is disposed on an end of the second support rod facing away from the first support rod.
Furthermore, Fedon teaches a net training device wherein the support component comprises:
a first support rod (Figure 11, element 176), wherein the first support rod is rotatably connected (Figure 11, element 182; note elements 166/176 rotatably connected to element 118 at 182) to the base support (Figure 11, element 118);
a second support rod (Figure 11, element 174), wherein the second support rod is connected with the first support rod in a plug-in manner (Figure 11, elements 174, 176 and 180; note rod 174 slidingly receives rod 176);
a locking member (Figure 11, element 180), wherein the locking member is configured to lock the first support rod with the second support rod (col. 65, lines 57-63); and
a positioning member (Figure 11, element 172), wherein the positioning member abuts (Figure 11, note elements 172 and 112 connected at bracket 186) against the outer frame (Figure 11, element 112) of the training net and is configured to limit the outer frame of the training net (col. 6 lines 8-14), and the positioning member is disposed on an end of the second support rod facing away from the first support rod (Figure 11, element 172 connected to the end of element 174).
The combination of Fiore in view of Bruno and Fedon includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Fiore in view of Bruno to incorporate the teachings of Fedon to provide a base support for a pickleball training net device, wherein the support comprises a first support rod, wherein the first support rod is rotatably connected to the base support; a second support rod, wherein the second support rod is connected with the first support rod in a plug-in manner; a locking member, wherein the locking member is configured to lock the first support rod with the second support rod; and a positioning member, wherein the positioning member abuts against the outer frame of the training net and is configured to limit the outer frame of the training net, and the positioning member is disposed on an end of the second support rod facing away from the first support rod.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore (US 2019/0262680) in view of Bruno (US 4813684) and Fedon (US 11819747) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Winefordner (US 8079610).
Regarding claim 4, Fiore in view of Bruno and Fedon teaches the pickleball training net device as claimed in claim 3, but does teach a locking member comprising a U-shaped clamp, the U-shaped clamp is disposed at a connection position between the first support rod and the second support rod, the locking member is provided with a bolt member passing through the U-shaped clamp, and the bolt member is configured to tighten the U-shaped clamp.
Furthermore, Winefordner teaches a locking member (Figure 13, element 35) comprising a U-shaped clamp (Figure 12, element 160), the U-shaped clamp is disposed at a connection position between the first support rod (Figure 12, element 180) and the second support rod (Figure 12, element 170), the locking member is provided with a bolt member (Figure 12, element 150) passing through the U-shaped clamp (Figure 12, element 160), and the bolt member is configured to tighten the U-shaped clamp (col. 6, lines 63-64).
The combination of Fiore in view of Bruno, Fedon, and Winefordner includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Fiore in view of Bruno and Fedon to incorporate the teachings of Winefordner to provide a locking member for a pickleball training net device, comprising a U-shaped clamp, the U-shaped clamp is disposed at a connection position between the first support rod and the second support rod, the locking member is provided with a bolt member passing through the U-shaped clamp, and the bolt member is configured to tighten the U-shaped clamp.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore (US 2019/0262680) in view of Bruno (US 4813684) and Fedon (US 11819747) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Williams (US 2026/0102011).
Regarding claim 5, Fiore in view of Bruno and Fedon teaches the pickleball training net device as claimed in claim 3, but does not teach a cross-section of the positioning member that is in a U-shape, and a U-shape inner side surface of the positioning member abuts against the outer frame of the training net.
Furthermore, Williams teaches a support component (Figure 1, element 120) wherein a cross-section of the positioning member (Figure 1, element 130) is in a U-shape (paragraph [0014], line 1-5), and a U-shape inner side surface of the positioning member abuts against the outer frame of a curtain rod (paragraph [0014], line 1-5). Williams reveals that it is known in the art of support members to provide a positioning member with a u-shaped cross section where the inner surface abuts an outer frame to allow the frame to be placed therein after rotation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the training net device of Fiore in view of Bruno and Fedon with a positioning member with a u-shaped cross section where the inner surface abuts an outer frame like that of Zhang in order to allow the frame to be placed therein after rotation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiore (US 2019/0262680) in view of Bruno (US 4813684) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janis et al. (US 2024/0100408), hereafter referred to as Janis.
Regarding claim 8, Fiore in view of Bruno teaches the pickleball training net device as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a device wherein a width of the outer frame is 6 feet. Janis reveals that it is known in the art of pickleball training net devices to provide an outer frame with a width of 6 feet (paragraph [0041], lines 1-2) to enable the device to simulate pickleball gameplay conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the training net device of Fiore in view of Bruno with a width of the outer frame of 6 feet like that of Janis in order to effectively simulate pickleball gameplay conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights