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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 12-16, and 18-25 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.
With respect to claim 1, the newly added limitations regarding “a reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular structure extending along and in continuous contact with a top edge of the core and a bottom edge of the core”, were not describe in the original disclosure in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that, at the time the application was filed, applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant referred to [0017] of the published application for such support (remarks page 6). However, the frame surrounding the form, i.e., “along the top, toe, and bottom edges”, is not indication to “and in continuous contact with the core”, as claimed. Additionally, the published application in [0018] states “Alternatively, multiple reinforcing frames 40 may be positioned around various regions of the core element 30, and optionally may contact each other at their ends to form a continuous frame 40 around the core element 30” . Such, limitations, are not “a reinforcing frame extending along and in continuous contact with a top edge of the core and a bottom edge of the core”, as claimed.
Same issues with respect to independent claims 13 and 18, whereas each recites similar limitations.
With respect to dependent claims 5-6, 9-10, 12, 14-16, and 19-25, they are rejected based upon their dependency to respective independent claims 1, 13 and 18.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9-10, 12-16, and 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carol CA 2,228,104 (“Carol”) in view of Quigley et al US 5,888,601 (“Quigley”), Gans US 2012/0070301 (“Gans”) and Tiitola US 2001/0041633 (“Tiitola”)
As per claim 1, Carol discloses a hockey stick blade (Figs. 3 and 4; page 6:15-page 8:19 and page 9:11-page 13:22 in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2; page 3:14+), comprising:
a heel region, a striking region a toe region, a top edge and a bottom edge (Figs. 3 and 4 in conjunction 3:14-29; 6:16-7:16 and 9:11-14 and Figs. 1 and 2 (regarding the striking region of the blade);
a foam core extending along a longitudinal axis of the hockey stick blade and positioned within the heel region, the striking region, and the toe region, the foam core further including a top edge, a bottom edge, a heel section, and a toe section (preform polyurethane foam core 34)(Figs. 3 and 4; 10:1-16; 11:12-12:19);
a reinforcing frame extending along the top edge and the bottom edge of the foam core (construed as spun glass roving 39; Figs. 1 and 2 in conjunction to page 10, lines 4+ “ A spun glass roving 39 of 225 yield is wrapped around the bottom edge, toe and top edge of the blade and held in place by loops of polyester thread”; (Figs. 1 and 2, in conjunction to Figs. 3 and 4; 10:12-16; 11:21-12:1) and wherein the reinforcing frame is configured to increase a torsional stiffness of the stick blade (the placement of the reinforcement spun glass 39 interior to the blade along the bottom-top-heel-and toe provides such torsional stiffness to the blade)(Fig . 2); and
a front-facing wall attached to or integral with at least one of the reinforcing frame and the foam core; and a rear-facing wall attached to or integral with at least one of the reinforcing frame and the foam core (Figs. 1 and 2 in conjunction to Figs. 3 and 4; as well as 3:14-29, 6:16-7:16 and 9:11-14 as the blade is formed by fiber reinforced wooden blades or composite material to house the core and frame within).
Carol is not specific regarding the reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular structure, wherein the hollow tubular structure is filled with an expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base, wherein the expanded syntactic foam of the reinforcing frame provides infernal pressure that help the reinforcing frame maintain its shape.
Carol is not specific regarding the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the top edge of the core and the bottom edge of the core.
With respect to a reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular, the tubular structure is filled with an expanded syntactic foam, in the field hockey stick devices, Quigley discloses the use of a hollow tubular reinforcing frame filled with an expanded syntactic foam (reinforcing hollow tubular 206a filled with expandable foam 206b)(Fig. 13; 9:28-34). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s reinforcing member comprising a hollow tubular filled with an expanded syntactic foam for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Quigley’ suggestions that such reinforcing member filled with expandable foam provide properties of durability and strength (e.g., 1:43+). Such strength and durability are much desired within the blade of Carol as it subject to large impact during a hockey play/game.
Quigley is not specific regarding the expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base.
However, in the field of forming a hockey blade, Gans discloses the use of expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base (in paragraphs [0026], [0030],[ 0034] and [0046]+). Therefore, 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 to form Carol- Quigley’ expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Gans’ suggestions that such expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base possesses properties suitable to be employed with a hockey blade stick that is subject to large impact during a hockey game. In addition, as previously mentioned, a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). Therefore, 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 to form the modified Carol- Quigley’s expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing readily available well-known material that is suitable for its intended use as a light enough material that is suitable to withstand many loads, including impact loads while the blade use in playing hockey game.
With respect to the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the top edge of the core and the bottom edge of the core, Tiitola discloses a reinforcing frame (frame 10)(Fig. 11 and [0033]) is in continuous contact with a top edge of a core and a bottom edge of the core (the frame is surrounding and in continues contact with foam core 5 (note at least [0032] regarding core foam 5). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the top edge of the core and the bottom edge of the core for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Tiitola’s suggestion that such configuration/arrangement provides enhance properties to the hocky blade (e.g., [0034] ”The sock-like or wound fiber reinforcement 10 forms a seamless cover around the stiffening element 5 and the lower end of the shaft 3. Such a structure enables good torsional rigidity all the way from the shaft to the blade.”)
As per claim 5, with respect wherein the tubular structure is substantially U-shaped, note Quigley’s Fig. 13 (also note 3:13-40 as the structure of the reinforcing member). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s tubular structure is substantially U-shaped for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As per claim 9, with respect to wherein the reinforcing frame runs from the heel section to the toe section, note Carol’s Fig. 3 as well as 10:1-12+ regarding reinforcing frame (glass roving 39).
As per claim 10, Carol discloses, further comprising a hosel extending from the heel region (such as shaft point 37 to receive shaft/stick 31)(Fig. 3; 9:24+ and 10:22+) wherein the reinforcing frame runs from an upper surface of the hosel, along the foam core top edge, around the toe section, along the bottom edge, along the heel section to a lower surface of the hosel (as the reinforcing frame 39 runs, encircle the foam core 34 along the top-toe-bottom-heel- edges/section of the blade)(Figs. 3 and 4; 10:1-16; 11:21-12:1).
As per claim 12, Carol discloses wherein the foam core comprises a syntactic foam material or a lightweight foam material (foam core 34)(10:3-4 and 11:15-18).
As per claim 13, Carol discloses a hockey-stick blade (Figs. 3 and 4; page 6:15-page 8:19 and page 9:11-page 13:22 in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2; page 3:14+), comprising:
a front-facing wall and a generally opposing back-facing wall with a cavity therebetween, the front-facing wall and the generally opposing back-facing wall (Figs. 1 and 2 in conjunction to Figs. 3 and 4; 3:14-29, 6:16-7:16 and 9:11-14 as the blade is formed by fiber reinforced wooden blades or composite material to house the core and frame within) extending longitudinally from a toe section, to a striking section, to a heel section, and vertically from a top section to a bottom section (Figs. 3 and 4 in conjunction to 3:14-29; 6:16-7:16; 9:11-14 and Figs. 1 and 2 (regarding the blade structure);
a core positioned between the front-facing wall and the back-facing wall (preform polyurethane foam core 34)(Figs. 3 and 4; 10:1-16; 11:12-12:19);
a reinforcing frame comprising a tubular structure extending along a top edge and a bottom edge of the blade (spun glass roving 39; Figs. 1 and 2 regarding heel portion 12 and Fig. 3 (10:13+), and wherein the reinforcing frame is configured to increase a torsional stiffness of the hockey stick blade (the placement of the reinforcement spun glass 39 interior to the blade along the bottom-top-heel-and toe provides such torsional stiffness to the blade)(Fig . 2).
Carol is not specific regarding the reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular, wherein the hollow tubular structure is filled with an expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base, wherein the expanded syntactic foam expand during a curing step to fill the interior of the reinforcing and to provide infernal pressure that help the reinforcing frame maintain its shape.
Carol is not specific regarding the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the top edge of the core and the bottom edge of the core.
With respect to a reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular, the tubular structure is filled with an expanded syntactic foam, in the field hockey stick devices, Quigley discloses the use of a hollow tubular reinforcing frame filled with an expanded syntactic foam (reinforcing hollow tubular 206a filled with expandable foam 206b)(Fig. 13; 9:28-34). With respect to expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base, Gans discloses the use of expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base (in paragraphs [0026], [0030],[ 0034] and [0046]+). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular structure extending along the top edge and the bottom edge of the foam core, wherein the hollow tubular structure is filled with an expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base, wherein the expanded syntactic foam of the reinforcing frame provides infernal pressure that help the reinforcing frame maintain its shape as taught by Quigley and Gans for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to “wherein the expanded syntactic foam expand during a curing step to fill the interior of the reinforcing frame”, it is noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The final product would have included an expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base to fill the interior of the reinforcing frame (as taught by Gans).
With respect to the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the top edge of the core and the bottom edge of the core, Tiitola discloses a reinforcing frame (frame 10)(Fig. 11 and [0033]) is in continuous contact with a top edge of a core and a bottom edge of the core (the frame is surrounding and in continues contact with foam core 5 (note at least [0032] regarding core foam 5). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the top edge of the core and the bottom edge of the core for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claims 14, 15, in this embodiment Carol is not specific regarding wherein the reinforcing frame (i.e. reinforcing frame (39/35)(Figs. 3 and 4; 10:12-14; 11:20:29) comprises composite plies oriented at zero degrees to a longitudinal axis of the blade to provide bending stiffness (claim 14), wherein the reinforcing frame comprises composite plies oriented at 45 degrees to a longitudinal axis of the blade to provide torsional stiffness (claim 15).
However, Carol indicates that placing plies, fibers in 0º and 45º is well known within reinforcing tube means, such as with glass sock/tube 35 in orientation of +/- 45º (page 10:4-12 and page 11:24-12:1). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s reinforcing frame composition plies wherein the reinforcing frame comprises composite plies oriented at zero degrees to a longitudinal axis of the blade to provide bending stiffness; and wherein the reinforcing frame comprises composite plies oriented at 45 degrees to a longitudinal axis of the blade to provide torsional stiffness for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Carol’s suggestions wherein the amount, type and orientation of fibers are selected to provide the desired weight, stiffness and strength of the blade and shaft assembly (11:29-12:1).
As per claim 16, with respect to the structure configured to follow the shape of the hockey stick blade, note Carol’s Fig. 3 and page 10:4-14 as the structure follow the shape of the hockey blade. With respect to the tubular structure is substantially a U-shape, note Quigley’s Fig. 13 (also note 3:13-40 as the structure of the reinforcing member). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s tubular structure as substantially a U-shape for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
As per claim 18, Carol discloses a hockey-stick blade (Figs. 3 and 4; page 6:15-page 8:19 and page 9:11-page 13:22 in conjunction to Figs. 1 and 2; page 3:14+), consisting of:
a front-facing wall and a generally opposing back-facing wall with a cavity therebetween (Figs. 1 and 2 in conjunction to Figs. 3 and 4; 3:14-29, 6:16-7:16 and 9:11-14 as the blade is formed by fiber reinforced wooden blades or composite material to house the core and frame within);
a top section (Figs. 1-3);
a bottom section (Figs. 1-3);
a reinforcing frame (spun glass roving 39) positioned between the front-facing wall and the back-facing wall (Figs. 3 and 4) and comprising tubular structure (Figs. 3-4; pages 10: lines 4-14), wherein the tubular structure comprises braided fibers (page 10: 4-15; pages 11: 20-12:5); and
a foam core positioned within the cavity (preform polyurethane foam core 34)(Figs. 3 and 4; 10:1-16; 11:12-12:19), wherein the reinforcing frame extends between the top section and the foam core and along the bottom section between the foam core (Figs. 3 and 4), and wherein the reinforcing frame is configured to increase a torsional stiffness of the hockey-stick blade (the placement of the reinforcement spun glass 39 interior to the blade along the bottom-top-heel-and toe provides such torsional stiffness to the blade; Fig . 2).
Carol is not specific regarding the reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular structure and is filled with an expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base, wherein the expandable syntactic foam fills the interior of the reinforcing fame and provides infernal pressure to maintain the shape of the reinforcing frame.
Carol is not specific regarding wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion of the foam core along the top section, wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion of the foam core along the bottom section.
With respect to a reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular, the tubular structure is filled with an expanded syntactic foam, in the field hockey stick devices, Quigley discloses the use of a hollow tubular reinforcing frame filled with an expanded syntactic foam (reinforcing hollow tubular 206a filled with expandable foam 206b)(Fig. 13; 9:28-34; also note at least Fig. 3 and 6:55-7:16 as the hollow reinforcing structure is comprises braided fibers). With respect to expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base, Gans discloses the use of expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base (in paragraphs [0026], [0030],[ 0034] and [0046]+). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s reinforcing frame comprising a hollow tubular structure filled with an expanded syntactic foam including thermoplastic microspheres in an epoxy base, wherein the expandable syntactic foam fills the interior of the reinforcing fame and provides infernal pressure to maintain the shape of the reinforcing frame as taught by Quigley and Gans for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to the reinforcing frame wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion of the foam core along the top section, wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion of the foam core along the bottom section, Tiitola discloses a reinforcing frame (frame 10)(Fig. 11 and [0033]) is in continuous contact with a top edge of a core and a bottom edge of the core (the frame is surrounding and in continues contact with foam core 5 (note at least [0032] regarding core foam 5). Thus, Tiitola discloses a reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion a foam core along a top section, wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion of the foam core along a bottom section. Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion of the foam core along the top section, wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a central portion of the foam core along the bottom section for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 19, with respect to wherein the tubular structure is substantially U-shaped, note Quigley’s Fig. 13 (also note 3:13-40 as the structure of the reinforcing member). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s wherein the tubular structure is substantially U-shaped for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
As per claim 20, Carol discloses wherein the foam core comprises a syntactic foam (foam core 34)(10:3-4 and 11:15-18).
As per claims 21, 22, with respect to wherein the reinforcing frame extends along and is in continuous contact with the toe region of the foam core (claim 21), and wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a center portion of the top edge and a center portion of the bottom edge of the foam core (claim 22), note Tiitola regarding frame 10 that is in continuous contact with a top edge of a core and a bottom edge of the core (the frame is surrounding and in continues contact with foam core 5)(Fig. 11 and at least [0033]). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s wherein the reinforcing frame extends along and is in continuous contact with the toe region of the foam core and wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a center portion of the top edge and a center portion of the bottom edge of the foam core for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claims 23, 24, with respect to wherein the reinforcing frame extends along and is in continuous contact with a toe edge of the core (claim 23), and wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a center portion of the top edge and a center portion of the bottom edge of the core (claim 24), note Tiitola regarding frame 10 that is in continuous contact with a top edge of a core and a bottom edge of the core (the frame is surrounding and in continues contact with foam core 5)(Fig. 11 and at least [0033]). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s wherein the reinforcing frame extends along and is in continuous contact with a toe edge of the core and wherein the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with a center portion of the top edge and a center portion of the bottom edge of the core for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 25, with respect to wherein the reinforcing frame extends along and is in continuous contact with a toe section of the foam core, note Tiitola regarding frame 10 that is in continuous contact with a top edge of a core and a bottom edge of the core (the frame is surrounding and in continues contact with foam core 5)(Fig. 11 and at least [0033]). Therefore, 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 to form Carol’s frame extends along and is in continuous contact with a toe section of the foam core for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Within the modified Carol by at least the teachings of Tiitola, as the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the foam core while completely surrounding it (e.g., Tiitola’s Fig. 11), as the modified reinforcing frame of Carol would have extend along the toe section (e.g., Carol’s Fig. 3), the foam core of the toe section would have been in continuous contact therewith.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carol, Quigley, Gans and Tiitola as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xun et al US 2013/0116070 (“Xun”).
As per claim 6, with respect to the tubular structure is filled with a synaptic foam, note Quigley’s Fig. 13 and 9:28+. Carol, by at least the teachings of Quigley, is not specific regarding prior to sealing each end.
However, Xun discloses wherein a tubular structure is filled with a synaptic foam, prior to sealing each end, Xun’s [0008], [0009], and [0042] in conjunction to Fig. 3 as the reminder of the foam material 20 to be insert within the tubular structure/s (of channels 30-32) to be sealed (at the ends 36-40, channel 30 and ends 42-38 for channel 32); note in particular [0042]”The bridge members 60, 62 and the remainder of the foam core 20 may form a unitary, one-piece, monolithic structure, with the bridge members 60, 62 closing the first ends 36, 38 and second ends 40, 42 of the channels 30, 32”). Therefore, 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 to form Carol- Quigley’s hollow structure filled with a synaptic foam, prior to sealing each end, as taught by Xun for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using of a known a technique to seal the filled hollow reinforcing tubular member to insure the expanded syntactic foam remains within.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,5-6, 9-10, 12-16 and 18-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference or combination thereof applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular applicant’s arguments as Carol is not specific regarding the reinforcing frame is in continuous contact with the top edge of the core and the bottom edge of the core, are moot as such new limitations are taught by the reference to Tiitola as set forth above.
With respect to applicant’s remarks as “Notably, Carol teaches that spun glass roving is placed over the blade, and not the preform core 34” (remarks page 6), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Carol’s Fig. 3 the reinforcing frame (39) clearly extending around the foam core 34 along its top-bottom-toe-heel edges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 4/24/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights