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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to PCT/FI2023/000007 filed 27 October 2023 and for foreign priority to FI20227137 filed 04 November 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Replacement drawing sheets for Figures 3-5 were received on 16 April 2026 and have been approved by the Office. The drawing objections have been obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The specification objection has not been fully obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 16 April 2026. See below.
The claim objections have not been fully obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 16 April 2026. See below.
The rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have not been fully obviated in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 16 April 2026. See below.
Claims 1-15 were previously indicated allowable in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 16 January 2026.
Claims 1-15 are still pending. An action on the merits follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Angles α, β1, β2, γ1, and γ2 in Figure 4.
The drawings are further objected to because of the following:
The angles β1 and β2 in Figure 3 do not show angles. The reference numbers appear to be referencing lengths of the fastener member. It is unclear where the angle is being measured.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language: “A trampoline is disclosed” in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 10, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4-5, “each spring element” should read --each spring element of the plurality of spring elements--
Claim 1, line 7, “each fastener member” should read --each fastener member of the plurality of fastener members--
Claim 1, line 7, “centre” should read --center--
Claim 1, line 14, “the attaching members” should read --the plurality of attaching members--
Claim 1, line 15, “the casings” should read --the two casings--
Claim 1, line 15, “the fastener members” should read --the plurality of fastener members--
Claim 1, lines 16-17, the distance” should read --a distance--
Claim 2, line 2, “of and” should read --and--
Claim 3, line 3, “the side folds” should read --the two side folds--
Claim 4, line 3, “the side folds” should read --the two side folds--
Claim 10, line 3, “embers” should read --members--
Claim 12, lines 4-5, “adjacent fastener members” should read --adjacent fastener members of the plurality of fastener members--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 fastener member” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim previously recites “a plurality of fastener members,” but does not recite only one fastener member. It is unclear if the fastener member is one of the plurality of fastener members previously recited. It is noted that “the fastener member” is further recited throughout the dependent claims. If claim 1 is amended to correct the antecedent basis issue, the dependent claims reciting “the fastener member” must also be amended or may be further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “respective casings” in line 18. It is unclear which of the “two casings,” the “outer casing,” or the “inner casing” are being referred to by this limitation.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the adjacent attaching members” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein the fastener member is set into respective casings, such that outer casings or inner casings of the adjacent attaching members and the anchor point is between the adjacent attaching members” in lines 18-20. The limitation is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. The claim is written such that the outer and inner casings of adjacent attaching members and the anchor point of a fastener member is between the adjacent attaching members, but the outer and inner casings are part of the adjacent attaching members and therefore cannot be between the attaching members. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as two separate limitations requiring (1) that the outer casing and the inner casing are part of the adjacent attaching members and (2) that the anchor point is between the adjacent attaching members. The Office suggests the following limitation as an amendment to the claim: --wherein the fastener member is set into respective inner casings or respective outer casings of adjacent attaching members of the plurality of attaching members, wherein the anchor point of the fastener member is between the adjacent attaching members of the plurality of attaching members.-- It is noted that this does not address the antecedent basis issue regarding “the fastener member” indicated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the folded fastener member” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the end fold” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “folds of the fastener member” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if these “folds” are referring to the “at least three folds,” the “center fold,” or the “two side folds” recited previously in claim 2, upon which claim 9 depends, or to another, separate set of folds.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “casings” in line 3. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the “two casings,” “outer casing,” and/or “inner casing” recited previously in claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends, or to another, separate set of casings.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “anchor point of the spring element” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the “anchor point for the mat end of a respective one of the plurality of spring elements” previously recited in claim 1 or to another, separate structure.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the spring element” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the attaching member” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose all of the structural and functional limitations of the claimed invention, further in view of the structure of the inner and outer casings of the plurality of attaching members.
The closest prior art of record includes Sidlinger (US 3,767,009).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sidlinger teaches a trampoline comprising: a frame (frame 10), a mat (trampoline bed 13), and a plurality of spring elements (resilient supports 14) arranged between the mat and the frame, and wherein the spring element comprises a mat end and a frame end, and the mat comprises a plurality of attaching members (fabric strips 15) on the edge of the mat, the trampoline further comprising a plurality of fastener members (anchor rods 18) comprising an anchor point (saddle 19) for the mat end of the spring element, wherein at least some of the attaching members comprise [a casing] (loop 17), the casings arranged to receive the fastener members (Fig. 3), and wherein the fastener member is set into corresponding casings, such that … the anchor point is between the adjacent attaching members (Fig. 3 shows the anchor rods 18 set into loops 17 of adjacent fabric strips 15.).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sidlinger fails to teach wherein at least some of the attaching members comprise two casings comprising an outer casing and an inner casing, wherein a distance from the inner casing to the frame is longer than the distance from the outer casing to the frame, wherein the fastener member is set into respective inner casings or respective outer casings of adjacent attaching members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but do not address every issue indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 16 January 2026.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments have obviated the objections. New drawing objections are made above in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the specification objections, Applicant’s amendments have not obviated the objections. “Disclosed” in the abstract is still implied language and should be removed.
Regarding the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments did not address each of the claim objections. Several objections are maintained and new ones are made above in view of the amended claims.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant remarks that the claims have been amended to address the lack of antecedent basis and clarity. The Office respectfully disagrees. Several of the rejections were not addressed and are maintained above. Applicant is requested to review the claims to ensure that each limitation has proper antecedent basis in the claims. A singular structure does not inherently have antecedent basis in a plural structure. For example, “the fastener member” does not have proper antecedent basis in “a plurality of fastener members.” It is unclear which of the plurality is being referenced by the singular attaching member. It is noted that several of these limitations are then carried through the dependent claims, such as “the fastener member” throughout claims 2-15. If the first instance of “the fastener member” is amended to correct the antecedent basis issue, the dependent claims must also be amended or may be further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). This must also be done for similarly rejected limitations, such as “the attaching member,” “the spring element,” etc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina A Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8am - 4pm MT.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights