Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 9, 13-16, 18-20, 22-23 and 26 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.
With respect to claim 9, further clarification is require regarding “providing a shaft and a hosel, wherein the hosel connects to a shaft and the hockey-stick blade” (line 25), as “a shaft” defines twice.
With respect to claim 16, same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
With respect to dependent claims 13-15, 18-20, 22-23 and 26, they are rejected based upon their dependency to respective independent claims 9 and 16.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1, 6, 9, 13 and 25 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearson US 7,329,195 (“Pearson”) in view of Goldsmith et al US 2009/0093326 (“Goldsmith”) and Sutherland CA2223098C (“Sutherland”)
As per claim 1, Pearson discloses a method of forming a hockey-stick blade (manner of forming hockey stick blade 130)(Figs. 10A-11; 7:31-8:3) comprising:
providing a separate upper core element, and a separate lower core element, wherein the upper core element and the lower core element extend along a length of the hockey-stick blade to a tip of a toe region of the hockey-stick blade (providing an upper core 132 separated from a lower core 134)(Fig. 10A; 7:31-36);
providing the upper core element with an upper core lower edge (Fig. 10A);
providing the lower core element having a lower core upper edge (Fig. 10A),;
placing a rib between the first reinforcing element and the second reinforcing element, wherein the rib is affixed to a front face and a rear face (placing spine 136)(Fig. 10A and 7:31+; note as the spine “extends between the laminated faces” (at least Fig. 11 in conjunction to Figs. 1, 4A and 4B, regarding the hockey blade’s faces);
wrapping the upper core element with a first set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at an angle relative to a lateral direction between the front and rear blade faces and wrapping the lower core element with one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at angle relative to the lateral direction (encasing, wrapping, the cores 132 and 142 with carbon fibers material 154)(Figs. 10A and 10B; 7:44-57) ; and separating the upper core element from the lower core element entirely by the rib (via spine 136)(Fig. 10A; 7:31+); and attaching the hockey-stick blade to a hosel (attaching hosel 58 with tenon 56 to blade 34)(Figs. 4A, 4b, and 5), wherein the hosel connects to a shaft (hosel 56/58 connect to a shaft 32)(Fig. 1 and 3:44-4:4; see also Fig. 18A).
Pearson is not specific regarding and wrapping the upper core lower edge with a first reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region and wrapping the lower core element upper edge with a second reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region, wherein the first reinforcing element and the second reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than a mid-region and a heel region.
Pearson is not specific regarding the use of first and second carbon plies wrapping the first and second cores, a first plies oriented at 30º around the first core and a second plies oriented at -30º around the second core.
Pearson is not specific regarding and wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft.
With respect to the first and second reinforcing elements, Pearson in a different embodiment discloses the use of reinforcing elements (blade 180 with reinforcing walls 186)(Figs. 13A and 13B; 8:21-54).
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 Pearson’s wrapping the upper core lower edge with a first reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region and wrapping the lower core element upper edge with a second reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Pearson’s suggestions to use reinforcing elements at such location to reinforce the blade structure to include reinforcing the toe region.
With respect to “wherein the first reinforcing element and the second reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than a mid-region and a heel region”, such amount to mere rearrangement of parts that would have been merely a matter of obvious engineering choice because shifting the position of the reinforcing elements would not have modified the operation of the hockey blade to include reinforcing elements position at the toe region; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to first and second carbon plies wrapping the first and second cores, a first plies oriented at 30º around the first core and a second plies oriented at -30º around the second core, Goldsmith discloses wrapping core elements (such as elements 500a-500c) with first and second carbon plies (520a-520b)(Fig. 14A and paragraphs [0060]-[0067]; note [0060] as the use of carbon plies fibers; note [0064] regarding the orientation of the plies at such angles). 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 Pearson’s with first and second carbon plies wrapping the first and second cores, a first plies oriented at 30º wrapped around the first core and a second plies oriented at -30º wrapped around the second core as taught by Goldsmith for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Goldsmith’s suggestions that such plies fiber wrapping provide additional strength and rigidity thereto ([0064]).
Note: the examiner construed the plies orientated between +/- 30 to 80 degrees, taught by Goldsmith, as the claim “at 30 degrees” and “at -30 degrees”. However, if there is any doubt regarding such interpretation, it is noted that it has been held that claimed which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of weight or proportions. 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 Pearson- Goldsmith’s first carbon plie orientated at 30º and the second carbon plies oriented at -30º, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”; see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, and merely indicates that the range “may” be within the claimed dimension in at least [0019].
The modified Pearson - Goldsmith would have formed the hockey blade with wrapping the upper core element and the first reinforcing element with a first set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at 30º relative to a lateral direction between the front and rear blade faces and such that the first reinforcing element is contained within the first set of one or more plies and wrapping the lower core element and the second reinforcing element with a second set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at -30º relative to the lateral direction and such that the second reinforcing element is contained within the second set of one or more plies.
With respect to wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft, Sutherland discloses a hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft (such using fiber of hosel 19 (Fig. 5 page 7:27-page 9:14) or hosel 24 (Fig. 6; page 9:16-pqge 10:1). 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 Pearson’s wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Sutherland’s suggestions that utilizing fiber to stiffen and strength the hosel-to-shaft would have enhanced the properties of the hockey stick-blade, in page 4:26+ “ The present invention increases both the strength and stiffness of the hosels used in the manufacture of hockey stick blades and is lighter. This will, as a result, lower the rate of failures that occur in the hosel area, and will also increase the torsional and longitudinal stiffness of the hosel, hence increasing the accuracy and speed of shots made with blades and sticks incorporating the invention.”
As per claim 6, Pearson discloses further comprising spacing the upper core element and the lower core element apart from one another in a vertical direction from a heel region to a toe region (spacing the upper core 132 form the lower core 134 via spine 136)(Figs. 10A and 11; 7:31-36).
As per claim 9, Pearson discloses a method of forming a hockey-stick blade (manner of forming hockey stick blade 130)(Figs. 10A-11; 7:31-8:3) comprising:
providing a separate first core element and a separate second core element, wherein the first core element defines a first core upper edge, a first core first face, a first core second face, and a first core lower edge, wherein the second core element defines a second core upper edge, a second core first face, and a second core second face, and a second core lower edge, wherein the first core element and the second core element extend along a length of the hockey-stick blade to a tip of a toe region of the hockey-stick blade (providing an upper core 132 separated from a lower core 134)(Fig. 10A; 7:31-36);
placing the first core element and the second core element adjacent to one another (Figs. 10A and 11; 7:31-36);
placing a rib between the first reinforcing element and the second reinforcing element, wherein the rib is affixed to a front face and a rear face (placing spine 136)(Fig. 10A and 7:31+; note as the spine “extends between the laminated faces” (at least Fig. 11 in conjunction to Figs. 1, 4A and 4B, as the hockey blade faces);
separating the first core element from the second core element entirely by the rib (Figs. 10A and 11; 7:31-36); and wrapping the first core element with a first set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at angle relative to a lateral direction between the front and rear blade faces and such that within the first set of one or more plies and wrapping the second core element with the set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at angle relative to the lateral direction and such contained within the set of one or more plies (encasing, wrapping, the cores 132 and 142 with carbon fibers material 154)(Figs. 10A and 10B; 7:44-57) ; and separating the upper core element from the lower core element entirely by the rib (via spine 136)(Fig. 10A; 7:31+); and providing a shaft and a hosel, wherein the hosel connects to a shaft and the hockey-stick blade (providing a shaft 32 and a hosel 58 with tenon 56)(Figs. 4A, 4b, and 5), wherein the hosel connects to a shaft (hosel 56/58 connect to shaft 32 which attached to blade 34)(Fig. 1 and 3:44-4:4; see also Fig. 18A).
Pearson is not specific regarding wrapping only the first core element lower edge, the first core first face, the first core second face with a first reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region; wrapping only the second core element upper edge, the second core first face, and the second core second face with a second reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region, wherein the first reinforcing element and the second reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than a mid-region and a heel region.
Pearson is not specific regarding and wrapping the first reinforcing element with the first set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at 30º relative to the lateral direction between the front and rear blade faces and such that the first reinforcing element is contained within the first set of one or more plies and wrapping the second core element and the second reinforcing element with a second set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at -30º relative to the lateral direction and such that the second reinforcing element is contained within the second set of one or more plies.
Pearson is not specific regarding and wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft.
With respect to the first and second reinforcing elements, Pearson in a different embodiment discloses the use of reinforcing elements (blade 180 with reinforcing walls 186)(Figs. 13A and 13B; 8:21-54). 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 Pearson’s wrapping only the first core element lower edge, the first core first face, the first core second face with a first reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region; wrapping only the second core element upper edge, the second core first face, and the second core second face with a second reinforcing element configured to stiffen the toe region, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. With respect to “wherein the first reinforcing element and the second reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than a mid-region and a heel region”, the examiner maintains his position that such would have been an obvious rearrangements of the parts, as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
With respect first and second carbon plies wrapping the first and second cores, as a first plies oriented at 30º around the first core and a second plies oriented at -30º around the second core, Goldsmith discloses wrapping core elements (such as elements 500a-500c) with first and second carbon plies 520a-520b)(Fig. 14A and paragraphs [0060]-[0067]; note [0060] as the use of carbon plies fibers; note [0064] regarding the orientation of the plies at such angles). 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 Pearson’s first and second carbon plies wrapping the first and second cores, as a first plies oriented at 30º around the first core and a second plies oriented at -30º around the second core, as taught by Goldsmith for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. With respect to “at 30º” and “at -30º”, the examiner maintains his position that if there is any doubt as Goldsmith’s range includes the claimed range, such would have been obvious as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
With the modified Pearson- Goldsmith the blade would have wrapping the first core element and the first reinforcing element with a first set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at 30º relative to a lateral direction between the front and rear blade faces and such that the first reinforcing element is contained within the first set of one or more plies and wrapping the second core element and the second reinforcing element with a second set of one or more plies including carbon fibers oriented at -30º relative to the lateral direction and such that the second reinforcing element is contained within the second set of one or more plies.
With respect to wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft, Sutherland discloses a hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft (such using fiber of hosel 19 (Fig. 5 page 7:27-page 9:14) or hosel 24 (Fig. 6; page 9:16-pqge 10:1). 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 Pearson’s wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
As per claim 13, Pearson discloses further comprising spacing the first core element and the second core element apart from one another in a vertical direction from the heel region to the toe region (spacing the upper core 132 form the lower core 134 via spine 136)(Figs. 10A and 11; 7:31-36).
As per claim 25, with respect to wherein the first core element and the second core element are reinforced with boron materials, Goldsmith discloses the use of plies wrapping cores (i.e., reinforced with boron), to include boron materials ([0060]). 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 Pearson’s first core element and the second core element are reinforced with boron materials for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in utilizing known materials suitable for their intended used as strong enough materials yet light enough to reduce a suer’s fatigue and alike.
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearson, Goldsmith and Sutherland as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Xun et al. US 9,044,658 (“Xun”).
As per claim 7, Pearson is not specific regarding wherein the first and second reinforcing elements comprise fiber-reinforced plies.
However, Xun discloses first and second reinforcing elements (70, 72) comprise fiber-reinforced plies (Figs. 2 and 4; 5:9+). 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 Pearson’s wherein the first and second reinforcing elements comprise fiber-reinforced plies as taught by Xun for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in select a known material suitable for their intend use as a reinforcing means of a hockey blade. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported was held obvious; see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. InterchemicalCorp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As per claim 8, Pearson is not specific regarding further comprising providing one reinforcing element with a length extending along the length of the hockey stick blade that is greater than a length of another reinforcing element extending along the length of the hockey stick blade. However, Xun teaches that reinforcing elements (70-72-74-76) may either span the entire length between core elements or may span a length less than the entire length between core elements (5: 59+), and that the arrangement of reinforcing elements (70-76) within the blade can be modified to provide the blade with tailored performance characteristics (5: 65-6:1; also see2:34-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to further modify the invention of Pearson by providing one reinforcing element with a length greater than a length of another reinforcing element along the length of the hockey stick blade, in order to achieve tailored performance characteristics of the blade as suggested by Xun, (e.g., 2:34+;and 5:59-6:1).
As per claim 14, Pearson is not specific regarding wherein the first and second reinforcing elements comprise fiber-reinforced plies and the rib is formed of fiber-reinforced materials. However, as discussed above the use of such materials is well-known while forming a hockey blade with reinforcing means as taught by Xun (Figs. 2 and 4; 5:9+). 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 Pearson’s wherein the first and second reinforcing elements comprise fiber-reinforced plies and the rib is formed of fiber-reinforced materials as taught by Xun for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known materials suitable to their intended used as had held to be obvious; see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. InterchemicalCorp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As per claim 15, Pearson is not specific further comprising providing one reinforcing element with a length extending along a length of the hockey-stick blade that is greater than a length of another reinforcing element extending along the length of the hockey-stick blade. However, Xun teaches that reinforcing elements (70-72-74-76) may either span the entire length between core elements or may span a length less than the entire length between core elements (5: 59+), and that the arrangement of reinforcing elements (70-76) within the blade can be modified to provide the blade with tailored performance characteristics (5: 65-6:1; also see2:34-38).
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 Pearson further comprising providing one reinforcing element with a length extending along a length of the hockey-stick blade that is greater than a length of another reinforcing element extending along the length of the hockey-stick blade as taught by Xun for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Claims 16, 18-20 and 26 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xun et al US 9,044,658 (“Xun”) in view of Pearson, Goldsmith and Sutherland.
As per claim 16, Xun discloses a method of forming a hockey-stick blade (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
providing a separate upper core element (upper core portion 50, Fig. 2; col. 4, lines 44-45), a separate middle core element (middle core portion 54), and a separate lower core element (lower core portion 52, the core elements 50, 52, and 54 being separated by intervening reinforcing elements as discussed below), each core element (50, 54, 52) defining an upper edge (at top of each core portion 50, 54, 52 in Fig. 3; at left of each core portion 50, 54, 52 in Fig. 2), a lower edge (at bottom of each core portion 50, 54, 52 in Fig. 3; at right of each core portion 50, 54, 52 in Fig. 2), a first face (as shown in Fig. 3; at top of each core portion 50, 54, 52 in Fig. 2), and a second face (at bottom of each core portion 50, 54, 52 in Fig. 2);
wrapping only the upper core lower edge, the upper core first face, and the upper core second face with a first reinforcing element (fiber-reinforced material 70, Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 18-26) configured to stiffen the toe region (note at least col. 2, lines 38-39 ”Each channel may have a first channel end 36, 38 proximate the toe region 14…” and 5:59-60 ”The reinforcing strips 70, 72, 74, 76 and the supplemental strips 94, 96 may span the entire length of the channels 30, 32…”, in conjunction to Figs. 1- 3);
wrapping only the middle core element upper edge, the middle core first face, and the middle core second face with a second reinforcing element (72, Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 18-26) configured to stiffen the toe region (note at least col. 2, lines 38-39 ”Each channel may have a first channel end 36, 38 proximate the toe region 14…” and 5:59-60 ”The reinforcing strips 70, 72, 74, 76 and the supplemental strips 94, 96 may span the entire length of the channels 30, 32…”, in conjunction to Figs. 1- 3) and wrapping only the middle core element lower edge, the middle core first face, and the middle core second face with a third reinforcing element (74, Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 18-26) configured to stiffen the toe region (note at least col. 2, lines 38-39 ”Each channel may have a first channel end 36, 38 proximate the toe region 14…” and 5:59-60 ”The reinforcing strips 70, 72, 74, 76 and the supplemental strips 94, 96 may span the entire length of the channels 30, 32…”, in conjunction to Figs. 1- 3);
wrapping only the lower core element upper edge, the lower core first face, and the lower core second face with a fourth reinforcing element (76, Fig. 2; col. 5, lines 18-26);
placing a first rib (94; col. 5, lines 39-43) between the first reinforcing element (70) and the second reinforcing element (72, Fig. 2);
placing a second rib (96; col. 5, lines 39-43) between the third reinforcing element (74) and the fourth reinforcing element (76, Fig. 2),
wherein the first rib (94) and the second rib (96) are affixed to a front face (17) and a rear face (19, col. 3, lines 13-14; the faces being formed by outer skin ply layers 100, 102, 104, 106 to which the ribs 94 and 96 are affixed when cured; see col. 6, lines 8-12 and 28-35, and col. 7, lines 44-47);
wherein the first rib (94) entirely separates the upper core element (50) from the middle core element (54, along the entire length of the core elements 50, 54, Fig. 4) and the second rib (96) entirely separates the middle core element (54) from the lower core element (52, along the entire length of the core elements 54, 52, Fig. 4); and
wrapping the upper core element (50) and the first reinforcing element (70) with a first set of one or more plies (col. 5, lines 26-27, “[a]dditional strips” that overlap and layer on top of strip 70; i.e., col. 5, lines 34-35, “a second strip … added over the top of” strip 70) including carbon fiber (col. 5, lines 44-50, carbon fiber prepreg material) such that the first reinforcing element (70) is contained within the first set of one or more plies (i.e., within the additional strip(s) layered on top of the strip 70);
wrapping the middle core element (54), the second reinforcing element (72), and the third reinforcing element (74) with a second set of one or more plies (col. 5, lines 26-27, the set including the “[a]dditional strips” that overlap and layer on top of strips 72 and 74; also see col. 5, lines 34-35) including carbon fiber (col. 5, lines 44-50, carbon fiber prepreg material) such that the second reinforcing element (72) and the third reinforcing element (74) are contained within the second set of one or more plies (i.e., within the set of additional strip(s) layered on top of the strips 72 and 74); and
wrapping the lower core element (52) and the fourth reinforcing element (76) with a third set of one or more plies (col. 5, lines 26-27, “[a]dditional strips” that overlap and layer on top of strip 76; also see col. 5, lines 34-35) including carbon fibers (col. 5, lines 44-50, carbon fiber prepreg material) such that the fourth reinforcing element (76) is contained within the third set of one or more plies (i.e., within the additional strip(s) layered on top of the strip 76); and providing a shaft and a hosel, wherein the hosel connects to a shaft and the hockey-stick blade (providing hosle 15)(Fig. 1, 3:55-64) to be attached to as shaft of the blade 10 (note Fig. 5 in conjunction to step 134 and 7:44-61).
Xun is not specific regarding wherein the first reinforcing element, the second reinforcing element, and the third reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than amid-region and a heel region.
Xun is not specific regarding the upper, middle, and lower core elements extend along a length of the hockey-stick blade to the tip of the toe-region of the hockey-stick blade, and with respect to the orientation of the carbon fibers relative to the lateral direction between the front and rear blade faces.
Xun is not specific regarding and wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft.
With respect to the first reinforcing element, the second reinforcing element, and the third reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than amid-region and a heel region, Xun teaches that reinforcing elements (70-72-74-76) may either span the entire length between core elements or may span a length less than the entire length between core elements (5: 59+), and that the arrangement of reinforcing elements (70-76) within the blade can be modified to provide the blade with tailored performance characteristics (5: 65-6:1; also see2:34-38). 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 Xun’s first reinforcing element, the second reinforcing element, and the third reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than amid-region and a heel region for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to tailored performance characteristics of the blade as suggested by Xun, (e.g., 2:34+;and 5:59-6:1). In addition, such positioning of the reinforcing elements, amount to mere rearrangement of parts that would have been merely a matter of obvious engineering choice because shifting the position of the reinforcing elements would not have modified the operation of the hockey blade to include reinforcing elements position at the toe region; see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). 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 Xun’s first reinforcing element, the second reinforcing element, and the third reinforcing element stiffen the toe region such that the toe region is longitudinally stiffened to a greater extent than amid-region and a heel region for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated as an obvious rearrangement of the reinforcing members at the toe region. With respect to the core/s extend along a length of the hockey-stick blade to the tip of the toe-region of the hockey-stick blade, Pearson discloses cores (132 and 134) extending along a length of blade (130)(Fig. 10A; 7:31+). 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 Xun’s core elements extending along a length of the hockey-stick blade to the tip of the toe-region of the hockey-stick blade as taught by Pearson for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Pearson’s suggestions that such arrangement of the cores along the length of the blade provide durability and high performance blade the can withstand extreme impacts (col. 1:64-col. 2:11). Within the modified Xun there would have been upper, middle, and lower core elements (as taught by Xun) each extend along the length of the blade (as taught by Pearson).
With respect to wrapping the core element with carbon fibers oriented at 30º, Goldsmith discloses wrapping core elements (such as elements 500a-500c) with first and second carbon plies 520a-520b)(Fig. 14A and paragraphs [0060]-[0067]; note [0060] as the use of carbon plies fibers; note [0064] regarding the orientation of the plies at such angles). 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 Xun’s wrapping the core element with carbon fibers oriented at 30º as taught by Goldsmith for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Goldsmith’s suggestions that such plies fiber wrapping provide additional strength and rigidity thereto ([0064]). Note: the examiner construed the oriented range of plies between +/- 30 to 80 degrees, taught by Goldsmith, as the claim “at 30 degrees”. However, if there is any doubt regarding such interpretation, the examiner maintains his position that such would have been obvious as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, and merely indicates that the range “may” be within the claimed dimension in at least [0019].
With respect to wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft, Sutherland discloses a hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft (such using fiber of hosel 19 (Fig. 5 page 7:27-page 9:14) or hosel 24 (Fig. 6; page 9:16-pqge 10:1). 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 P Xun’s wherein the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., to enhance the strength and stiffness properties of the hockey-stick-blade device).
As per claim 18, Xun further teaches (Figs. 1-3) spacing the upper core element (50), the middle core element (54), and the lower core element (52) apart from one another in a vertical direction (by the reinforcing elements 70-76, the additional strips layered over the reinforcing elements 70-76, and the supplemental strips 94-96) from a heel region to a toe region (see Xun, Fig. 1). In addition, Note Pearson’s Figs. 10A and 11 as cores 132 and 134 are spaced vertically from each other via spine 136. Within the modified Xun, the upper, middle, and lower core elements (as taught by Xun) would have been spaced apart as such (as taught by Pearson). 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 Xun’s spacing the cores as claimed for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known method to space the cores of the blades for purposes of absorb impacts and alike.
As per claim 19, Xun further teaches (Fig. 2) the first, second, third, and fourth reinforcing elements (70-76) comprise fiber-reinforced plies (col. 5, lines 9-19) and the first and second ribs (94 and 96) are formed of fiber-reinforced materials (col. 5, lines 39-40). Also, note Pearson’s Fig. 10A regarding rib/spine 136.
As per claim 20, Xun further teaches (Fig. 2) the upper, middle, and lower core elements (50, 54, 52) comprise foam (col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 8).
As per claim 26, although Xun is not specific regarding wherein the first reinforcing element and the second reinforcing element comprise a length of 1.0 inch, and wherein the third reinforcing element and the fourth reinforcing element comprise a length of 2.5 inches, it is noted that it has been held that claimed which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of weight or proportions. 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 Xun with such dimensions as claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case the device of Xun would have not operate differently with the dimension as claimed and would function appropriately with the claimed dimension.
Claims 21 and 22 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pearson, Goldsmith and Sutherland as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Gans US 2012/0070301 (“Gans”).
As per claims 21, 22, with respect to further comprising wrapping a ply around the tip of the toe region of the hockey-stick blade, Goldsmith teaches (Fig. 16B) wrapping a ply (cap layer 830; [0075]) around a tip of a toe region of a hockey stick blade ([0075] “around the circumference of the blade assembly,” which includes the tip of the toe region as clearly shown in Fig. 16B). Although Pearson-Goldsmith does not teach that the cap ply (830) is serrated, Gans teaches that it was known prior to Applicant’s invention to include serrations at the edges of a ply (carbon fiber layer 624, Fig. 6) to make it easier to wrap the ply (624) around the edges of a hockey blade perform during the manufacturing process ([0033], “carbon fiber layer 624 is then wrapped around the edges of the preform … and may have cut portions to provide for easier wrapping of the blade”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Pearson- Goldsmith by wrapping a cap ply around the tip of the toe region of the hockey-stick blade, as taught by Goldsmith, in order to reinforce the circumference of the blade, with the ply being serrated with serrations on the edges, as taught by Gans, in order to provide for easier wrapping of the cap ply about the circumference of the blade.
Claim 23 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xun, Pearson, Goldsmith and Sutherland as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gans US 2012/0070301 (“Gans”).
As per claim 23, with respect to further comprising wrapping a ply around the tip of the toe region of the hockey-stick blade, Goldsmith teaches (Fig. 16B) wrapping a ply (cap layer 830; [0075]) around a tip of a toe region of a hockey stick blade ([0075] “around the circumference of the blade assembly,” which includes the tip of the toe region as clearly shown in Fig. 16B). Although Pearson-Goldsmith does not teach that the cap ply (830) is serrated, Gans teaches that it was known prior to Applicant’s invention to include serrations at the edges of a ply (carbon fiber layer 624, Fig. 6) to make it easier to wrap the ply (624) around the edges of a hockey blade perform during the manufacturing process ([0033], “carbon fiber layer 624 is then wrapped around the edges of the preform … and may have cut portions to provide for easier wrapping of the blade”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Pearson- Goldsmith by wrapping a cap ply around the tip of the toe region of the hockey-stick blade, as taught by Goldsmith, in order to reinforce the circumference of the blade, with the ply being serrated with serrations on the edges, as taught by Gans, in order to provide for easier wrapping of the cap ply about the circumference of the blade.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-9,13-16,18-23 and 25-26 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.
Thus, applicant’s remarks regarding” None of the cited references disclose, teach, or suggest that "the hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft" as presently claimed” (remarks page 10), are moot as such new limitations are taught by the newly cited reference to Sutherland as set forth above.
With respect to applicant’s remarks that such modification to Pearson (which is only relevant to claims 1 and 9; whereas claim 16, the rejection is based upon Xun as the main reference) would somehow results in unsatisfactory intended purpose of the prior art hockey device (remarks page 10), such are applicant’s own conclusions.
As set forth above, including a hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength of the shaft (via fibers thereof) is much desired within hockey-stick blade, as suggested by Sutherland “ The present invention increases both the strength and stiffness of the hosels used in the manufacture of hockey stick blades and is lighter. This will, as a result, lower the rate of failures that occur in the hosel area, and will also increase the torsional and longitudinal stiffness of the hosel, hence increasing the accuracy and speed of shots made with blades and sticks incorporating the invention.” (page 4:26+). In that regard, per MPEP the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006)”. In this case, according to the teachings of Pearson (or Xun) and Sutherland, it is clear that modifying the hocky-stick blade of Pearson (or Xun) according to the teachings of Sutherland, would have resulted in an advance hockey-stick blade that includes properties of hosel approximates a stiffness and a strength that are much desired within a hockey-stick blade of Pearson (or Xun) that is suitable to sustain large impacts thereof.
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 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 3/5/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711