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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/25 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/081,922, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The ‘922 application fails to provide adequate support or enablement for numerous limitations claimed by the Applicant including the limitations in Claim 31 of a “molded gapless continuous one-piece elastomer, said illumination core sufficiently transparent to emit light…having a diameter of 3 inches joined by an annular side wall having a height of 1 inch; and an overcoat thickness…of three millimeters to six millimeters.” Therefore, the effective filing date of this Application is that of the non-provisional, which is 9/13/21.
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 31-43 are 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitations of "a molded gapless continuous one-piece elastomer", emphasis added. Applicant’s specification, however, makes no explicit or implicit disclosure in regard to the nature of the elastomer being “gapless”, or the like.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PGPUB US 20220323842 A1 by Ibragimov et al (“Ibragimov”), in view of PGPUB US 20200246661 A1 by Husemeyer et al (“Husemeyer”), further in view of PGPUB US 20190308076 A1 by Holzner et al (“Holzner”), further in view of PGPUB US 20090042659 A1 by Breaker et al (“Breaker”), further in view of PGPUB US 20190271572 A1 by Yang et al (“Yang”), further in view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regard to Claim 31, Ibragimov teaches a system comprising:
a hockey puck including an illumination core, said illumination core comprising […] plastic […] sufficiently transparent to emit light as a viewable indicia, said [illumination core] including therein:
(see, e.g., F1 with the exception of the puck body in regard to “illumination core”; and see, e.g., p61 in regard to employing transparent plastic to emit light);
a radio frequency transceiver;
(see, e.g., p20);
at least one sensor which generates sensor data that varies based on change in movement of said hockey puck;
(see, e.g., F7, 101);
one or more light emitters actuatable to illuminate said illumination core;
(see, e.g., F7, 111);
a microprocessor operable to execute said processor readable code to:
(see, e.g., F7, 109);
record said sensor data that varies based on change in one or more hockey puck movements;
(see, e.g., p20 and 65);
convert said sensor data generated by said at least one sensor to hockey puck movement values correlated to said one or more hockey puck movements;
(see, e.g., p20 and 65 in regard to identifying “soft receiving of the puck, or hard shots”);
[…]
actuate one or more light emitters upon satisfying […] hockey puck movement [criteria].
(see, e.g., p63-65);
[…]
and
a remote computing device including a non-transitory computer readable medium containing a processor readable code, said processor readable code executable to display a graphical user interface on a display surface of said computing device. said graphical user interface configured to receive user indications to actuate said illumination core of said hockey puck.
(see, e.g., p27).
Furthermore, to the extent to which the cited prior art may fail to teach the remaining claimed limitations, however, in an analogous reference Husemeyer teaches employing a graphical user interface (see, e.g., p195), as well as teaches
convert said sensor data generated by said at least one sensor to [ball] movement values correlated to said one or more [ball] movements;
compare said [ball] movement values to [ball] movement threshold values; and
[provide an output] upon satisfying said [ball] movement threshold values.
(see, e.g., p126);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the GUI taught by Husemeyer to receive the user input via the computing device otherwise taught by Ibragimov and make interactions with that device easier, as well as it would have been obvious to have employed the algorithm taught by Husemeyer to more precisely identify when the hockey puck was shot or received.
Furthermore, while Ibragimov may fail to teach the “illumination core” comprising a “molded gapless continuous one-piece” material, however, in an analogous reference Holzner teaches this feature whereby a one-piece elastic material that approximates the external dimensions of the puck (see, e.g., F4, 42; and p42) that may be molded (see, e.g., p47) (a “molded gapless continuous one-piece” illumination core) that surrounds an assembled structure comprising the puck’s electronics (see, e.g., F3, 30), and this entire package being surrounded by the puck body with an overcoat defining a hollow interior space retaining the assembled structure (see, e.g., F4, 43 and 44);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the prior art contains a device/method/etc. which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components/steps/elements with other components; the substituted components and their functions were known in the art; one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another; and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have arranged the illumination core otherwise taught by Ibragimov instead in the manner taught by Holzner such that it comprised a molded one-piece transparent elastic material (a “molded continuous one-piece” illumination core) surrounding the puck’s electronics, the entire package surrounded by the puck body, so as to make it easier to employ.
Furthermore, while Ibragimov teaches the lids of the illumination core being made of a transparent plastic (see, e.g., p61), and Holzner teaches employing an elastic material, neither reference may necessarily teach that these materials are a “elastomer”, however, such a material is taught as being used to make a hockey puck by Breaker (see, e.g., p60 and 89);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the elastomer as taught by Breaker as the transparent material otherwise taught by Ibragimov, in order to increase the impact resistance of the puck.
Furthermore, while Holzner teaches the illumination core and/or the overcoat being molded (see, e.g. p47), it may not necessarily teach the latter being “over-molded” the former, however, in an analogous reference, Yang teaches components being over-molded into a hockey puck (see, e.g., F6B and p45);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the technique taught by Yang in order to over-mold the illumination core taught by Holzner into the overcoat also taught by Holzner, so as to better protect the core.
Furthermore, while the cited prior art may fail to specifically teach the claimed dimensions of the illumination core and the surrounding overcoat, however,
the claimed relative dimensions of the illumination core and the overcoat would not perform any differently than the prior art device and, thereby, do not distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claims 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibragimov, in view of Husemeyer, further in view of Holzner, further in view of Breaker, further in view of Yang, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), further in view of PATENT US 5564698 A to Honey et al (“Honey”).
In regard to Claim 32, Ibragimov teaches the puck recording sensor data (see, e.g., p20) as well as the puck providing visual feedback to the user (p63-65), Honey teaches once the puck is struck with enough force the puck turns on (see, e.g., C6, L5-20);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined these teachings of Ibragimov and Honey and had the puck turn on, illuminate and indicate it was ready to start recording data when it was struck with a threshold amount of force as registered by the accelerometer also taught by Ibragimov, in order to provide feedback to the user and to save power.
Furthermore, Ibragimov teaches the user being able to enter practice parameters (see, e.g., p27);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined these teachings of Ibragimov and Honey and allowed the user to input the threshold at which the puck would turn on, in order to allow the user to customize his/her workout.
In regard to Claim 33, Ibragimov teaches the puck recording movement data (see, e.g., p20 and 65), Husemeyer teaches employing the claimed comparison of acceleration magnitude values to a threshold to determine whether certain events have occurred in regard to the movement of a sports object (see rejection of Claim 31), however, to the extent that the cited prior art may not teach wherein moving the puck causes it to activate in some fashion, in an analogous reference Honey teaches that functionality (see, e.g., C6, l5-20);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the algorithm taught by Husemeyer to detect the puck activation event taught by Honey and then to have initiated recording movement data as taught by Ibragimov, in order to save power as well as to not use memory to store data when the puck was continually motionless.
In regard to Claim 34, Ibragimov teaches the puck recording movement data (see, e.g., p20 and 65) and Honey teaches deactivating the puck after it has remained motionless for a period of time (see, e.g., C6, l35-55);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the puck deactivation event taught by Honey and then to have stopped recording the movement data otherwise as taught by Ibragimov, in order to save power as well as to not use memory to store data when the puck was continually motionless.
In regard to Claim 35, Ibragimov teaches the puck providing visual feedback to the user (p63-65) as well as Honey teaches a cool down period after which the puck deactivates (see, e.g., C6, l35-55);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined these teachings in order to have the puck provide visual feedback to the user upon reaching the end of the cool down period so that the user was aware that the puck was no longer recording data.
In regard to Claim 36, Ibragimov teaches the external device being employed to configure practice parameters for the puck (p63-65), Husemeyer teaches employing a GUI, as well as Honey teaches the cool down period having a define time period (see, e.g., C6, l35-55);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined these teachings in order to allow the length of the cool down period to be set remotely via the GUI on the external device as one of the practice parameters, in order to increase the flexibility with which practice could be set up.
In regard to Claim 37, Ibragimov teaches the puck providing visual feedback to the user (p63-65) as well as Honey teaches a cool down period after which the puck deactivates (see, e.g., C6, l35-55);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined these teachings in order to have the puck provide visual feedback to the user during the cool down period so that the user was aware that the puck was about to stop recording data.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibragimov, in view of Husemeyer, further in view of Holzner, further in view of Breaker, further in view of Yang, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), further in view of Honey, further in view of PGPUB US 20150373306 A1 by Flores et al (“Flores”).
In regard to Claim 38, Ibragimov teaches the external device being employed to configure practice parameters for the puck (p63-65) and, in an analogous reference, Flores teaches employing a GUI to indicate when to stop recording data regarding a sports session (see, e.g., F5B).
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the external device taught by Ibragimov to allow for the remote termination of recording data as taught by Flores of hockey puck movement, in order to allow an operator to select what data was being recorded.
In regard to Claim 39-40, Ibragimov teaches the external device being employed to configure practice parameters for the puck (p63-65) and, in an analogous reference, Flores teaches employing a GUI to save the contents of various sports sessions (see, e.g., [70).
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have employed the external device taught by Ibragimov to allow for saving of sessions as taught by Flores of hockey puck movement, in order to allow an operator to later review the sessions separately.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibragimov, in view of Husemeyer, further in view of Holzner, further in view of Breaker, further in view of Yang, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), further in view of Honey, further in view of Flores, further in view of Acee, Kevin, “New Padres pitcher Yu Darvish’s secret weapon is having so many of them”, San Diego Union-Tribune, March 2, 2021, downloaded from URL https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/padres/story/2021-03-02/padres-yu-darvish-pitches-knuckle-curve-slider-split-finger-hideo-nomo on 5/16/23 (“Darvish”).
In regard to Claim 41, Ibragimov teaches the practice data being downloaded to the external device for the coach to review it and store it (see, e.g., p20) and Darvish teaches superimposing various movement patterns along with average movement values for those patterns (see page 1);
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have combined the cited prior art in order to program the external device to superimpose the captured hockey puck movement patterns from the various practice sessions, calculated average values for each session, and stored those values, in order to provide metrics for the coach to advise the player.
In regard to Claim 42, Ibragimov teaches wherein said processor readable code executable to:
present in said graphical user interface a plurality of hockey move pattern icons correspondingly associated with a plurality of hockey move patterns;
receive by user indications in said graphical user interface selection of one of said plurality of hockey movement patterns;
(see, e.g., p27 and p65);
compare said hockey puck movement values…to said [….] hockey puck movement values…selected by said user indications in said graphical user interface; and
(see, e.g., p65);
actuate one or more light emitters based on comparison…to a…threshold value…pattern,
(see, e.g., p27 and 65);
wherein when said hocky puck movement values meet or exceed said predetermined pattern recognition threshold value, [provide a first visual feedback]
wherein when said hocky puck movement value is below said predetermined pattern recognition threshold value, [provide a second visual feedback]
(see, e.g., p27 and p65);
Furthermore, while Ibragimov teaches employing several different light sources to provide feedback regarding the user performance (see, e.g., p27 and 62), as well as teaches providing certain feedback when the user, e.g., passes too hard as opposes to not passes too hard (see, e.g., p65), it may not specifically teach only employing certain light sources in the former situation as opposed to the latter
However, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to try because there was at the time of filing a recognized problem or need in the art to provide differential visual feedback to the user based on his/her performance; there were a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to that recognized need or problem, in terms providing different feedback to the user under different circumstances; and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, by lighting some of the light sources when the pass was too hard and lighting other light sources when it was not..
Furthermore, Darvish teaches comparing movement patterns along with average movement values for those patterns (see rejection of Claim 41).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibragimov, in view of Husemeyer, further in view of Holzner, further in view of Breaker, further in view of Yang, further in view of MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), further in view of PGPUB US 20170004729 A1 by Kano (“Kano”).
In regard to Claim 43, Kano teaches employing accelerometer and gyroscope data (see, e.g., p2, p103-112) to detect when a sports object is struck by calculating angular velocity and acceleration data (F10A, p112) and normalized angular velocity and acceleration data (“baseline values”) (F10B, 112) over the same time period (“correlate”) and then determining the timing of the strike based on the maximum and minimum derivate values of the normalized data (F10C)
Furthermore, the combination of the cited prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the cited prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the cited prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to have added the gyroscope sensor and programming taught by Kano to the system otherwise taught by Ibragimov, in order to more precisely detect the timing of when the hockey puck was struck.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 15 of its Remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
77
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because there are no explicit or implicit disclosures in these portions of the Applicant’s specification in regard to the “elastomer” being “gapless”, or the like.
Applicant argues on page 16 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant does not claim any limitations in regard to that the “illumination core” necessarily “approximates the external dimensions of the puck” and, therefore, the cited prior art need not teach that feature.
Applicant argues on page 17 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image3.png
215
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Holzner teaches both the illumination core and the structure surrounding that core being molded (see, e.g., p42 and 46-47).
Applicant also argues on page 17 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image4.png
120
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because, as stated in the rejection made supra, the claimed relative dimensions of the illumination core and the overcoat would not perform any differently than the prior art device and, thereby, do not distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Applicant argues on page 22 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image5.png
196
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Holzner teaches the illumination core being molded (see, e.g., p47).
In regard to Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 32 they are addressed by the updated statement of rejection of same made supra. In regard to Applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 35 they are addressed by the combination of references made in the rejection.
Applicant argues on page 27 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 103:
PNG
media_image6.png
127
665
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Darvish in only relied on to teach superimposing data. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s other arguments are addressed by the updated statements of rejection made supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is listed in the attached PTO-Form 892 and is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715