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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Theken (5556092).
Regarding claim 1, Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches a grip (Fig. 6, Part No. 8) for sport or work equipment, comprising a tubular body (8) which extends along a longitudinal axis, said tubular body extending to and including a proximal end when on the sport or work equipment (See 6), said tubular body also having and has an outer peripheral surface adapted to be grasped by a user (Para. 0034), wherein said outer peripheral surface of the removable grip is shaped with a plurality of longitudinal faces (Fig. 6, Part No. 20) extending along the longitudinal axis, placed side by side, and with edges (15) adapted to facilitate the positioning of the finger joints of the gripping hand by the user (Para. 0040); wherein said edges are arranged along a plurality of pairs of helical or spiral paths (See fig. 6), each pair developing around said longitudinal axis with mutually opposite sign to define a plurality of areas (See fig. 6), each of said areas being delimited by two of consecutive edges along each of a corresponding pair of helical or spiral paths (see fig. 6).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “a removable grip” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus. The grip of Rose is fully capable of being removed and therefore meets the claim (as the claim does not state how the grip is removed and/or whether the grip will be used again after removal). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Rose does not teach the distance between said consecutive edges is between 10mm and 30mm.
Theken (Figures 1-5) teaches the distance between said consecutive edges is between 10mm and 30mm (Col. 4, Lines 23-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Rose with the distance between said consecutive edges is between 10mm and 30mm as taught by Theken as a means of spacing edges of longitudinal faces of a sports grip to accommodate the area of the hand which mates with the surface during use (Theken: Col. 4, Lines 23-36), and also as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches said spiral or helical paths have substantially the same longitudinal pitch (See fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches said pitch is constant or variable along said longitudinal axis (See fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches said edges are arranged along a plurality of pairs of helical or spiral paths having mutually opposite sign to define respective double helices (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches a grip (Fig. 6, Part No. 8) for sport or work equipment.
The modified Rose does not teach for each of said pairs of spiral paths, said edges are substantially rectilinear and inclined with respect to said longitudinal axis with an angle of inclination having the same module and opposite sign with respect to the edges of the other spiral path to delimit corresponding areas having a substantially hexagonal plan shape.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “for each of said pairs of spiral paths, said edges are substantially rectilinear and inclined with respect to said longitudinal axis with an angle of inclination having the same module and opposite sign with respect to the edges of the other spiral path to delimit corresponding areas having a substantially hexagonal plan shape” is directed to the shape of the claimed areas. The prior art of Rose (Para. 0016) discloses: “the micropattern is a continuous pattern of sets of intersecting ridge elements, which define a series of closed polygons. The polygons are of almost any shape, which is determined by the orientations of the ridges. The polygons may be square, rectangular, parallelepiped, more than four sided, like hexagonal, rounded, or circular or oval, etc..” It is noted that the prior art of Rose discloses changing the shape of the areas so that changing the shape of the areas of Rose to provide for said edges are inclined with respect to said longitudinal axis would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches said edges are curved (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches at least one of said areas are substantially concave or recessed inwards (See fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches each of said at least one areas is formed by a pair of portions converging towards a common median edge (see fig. 6).
The modified Rose does not teach each of said at least one areas is formed by a pair of trapezoidal portions converging towards a common median edge.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “each of said at least one areas is formed by a pair of trapezoidal portions” is directed to the shape of the claimed areas. The prior art of Rose (Para. 0016) discloses: “the micropattern is a continuous pattern of sets of intersecting ridge elements, which define a series of closed polygons. The polygons are of almost any shape, which is determined by the orientations of the ridges. The polygons may be square, rectangular, parallelepiped, more than four sided, like hexagonal, rounded, or circular or oval, etc..” It is noted that the prior art of Rose discloses changing the shape of the areas so that changing the shape of the areas of Rose to provide for trapezoidal portions as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches the areas are hexagonal (Para. 0016) with two transverse sides that join edges belonging to different spirals of a same pair (See fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches a sports or work equipment comprising a removable grip as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches a removable grip (Fig. 6, Part No. 8) for sport or work equipment.
The modified Rose does not teach said grip is integral with the equipment.
It is noted that applicant is claiming the grip and equipment as integral (i.e. as a one piece construction). It is noted that the use of a one piece construction (as claimed in claim 12) instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (See: In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches said grip is applied to the equipment (see fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches it is a sports equipment selected from the group comprising tennis racquets, Ping-Pong racquets, badminton racquets and golf clubs (Para. 0034).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches said spiral or helical paths have substantially the same longitudinal pitch (See fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches said edges are arranged along a plurality of pairs of helical or spiral paths having mutually opposite sign to define respective double helices (See fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches each of said pairs of spiral paths, said edges are substantially rectilinear (See fig. 6).
The modified Rose does not teach for each of said pairs of spiral paths, said edges are inclined with respect to said longitudinal axis with an angle of inclination having the same module and opposite sign with respect to the edges of the other spiral to delimit corresponding areas having a substantially hexagonal plan shape.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “for each of said pairs of spiral paths, said edges are inclined with respect to said longitudinal axis with an angle of inclination having the same module and opposite sign with respect to the edges of the other spiral to delimit corresponding areas having a substantially hexagonal plan shape” is directed to the shape of the claimed areas. The prior art of Rose (Para. 0016) discloses: “the micropattern is a continuous pattern of sets of intersecting ridge elements, which define a series of closed polygons. The polygons are of almost any shape, which is determined by the orientations of the ridges. The polygons may be square, rectangular, parallelepiped, more than four sided, like hexagonal, rounded, or circular or oval, etc..” It is noted that the prior art of Rose discloses changing the shape of the areas so that changing the shape of the areas of Rose to provide for said edges are inclined with respect to said longitudinal axis would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches at least one of said areas are substantially concave or recessed inwards (See fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches each of said at least one areas is formed by a pair of portions converging towards a common median edge (see fig. 6).
Rose does not teach each of said at least one areas is formed by a pair of trapezoidal portions.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “each of said at least one areas is formed by a pair of trapezoidal portions” is directed to the shape of the claimed areas. The prior art of Rose (Para. 0016) discloses: “the micropattern is a continuous pattern of sets of intersecting ridge elements, which define a series of closed polygons. The polygons are of almost any shape, which is determined by the orientations of the ridges. The polygons may be square, rectangular, parallelepiped, more than four sided, like hexagonal, rounded, or circular or oval, etc..” It is noted that the prior art of Rose discloses changing the shape of the areas so that changing the shape of the areas of Rose to provide for trapezoidal portions as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose in view of Theken, further in view of Masi (4108436).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches a removable grip (Fig. 6, Part No. 8) for sport or work equipment.
The modified Rose does not teach each of said areas is perforated.
Masi (Figures 1-12) teaches each of said areas is perforated (Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Rose with each of said areas is perforated as taught by Masi as a means of providing airflow means to a grip of a sports implement (Masi: Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Rose (Figures 1-6) teaches a removable grip (Fig. 6, Part No. 8) for sport or work equipment.
The modified Rose does not teach each of said areas is perforated.
Masi (Figures 1-12) teaches each of said areas is perforated (Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Rose with each of said areas is perforated as taught by Masi as a means of providing airflow means toa grip of a sports implement (Masi: Col. 3, Lines 1-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Rose does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “a plurality of longitudinal faces extending along the longitudinal axis”, this is not found persuasive because Rose teaches a plurality of longitudinal faces (Fig. 6, Part No. 20) extending along the longitudinal axis. It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “faces” is defined to mean “the surface of a thing, especially one that is presented to the view or has a particular function”.
Applicant argues that Rose lacks edges “adapted to facilitate placement of finger joints”, this is not found persuasive because Rose teaches edges (Fig. 6, Part No. 15) that are fully capable of facilitating placement of finger joints.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new limitation in claim 1 of “wherein the distance between said consecutive edges is between 10mm and 30mm” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711