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 Request for Reconsideration
The request for reconsideration filed 06/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 13, 15-17, 24-28, 39, 42-49, 51, 56-57, 59-60, 62-68, 70-71, 78-79, and 235 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 1-4, 7, 10, 13, 15-17, 24-27, 39, 42-46, 47, 51, 56-57, 59, 60, 62-68, 70, 78-79, and 235 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (20150328512) in view of Kardos (20180085647).
Regarding claim 1, Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a hockey stick comprising: a blade (Para 0055); and a shaft (Para. 0058); wherein the hockey stick comprises a lattice (Para. 0055-0058).
It is noted that the prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “a shaft to be held by a user” as the prior art teaches a shaft that is able to be “a shaft to be held by a user” as claimed. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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)).
Davis does not teach the lattice including fiber-reinforced composite material.
Kardos (Figures 1-33) teaches a hockey core (100) including fiber-reinforced (Para. 0089) composite material (Para. 0042).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “an additively-manufactured lattice including 3D-printed fiber-reinforced composite material” is directed to a product (a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (additively-manufactured; 3D-printed). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art combination of Davis and Kardos (under 35 USC 103) teaches the final product of a core/lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material and therefore meets the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Davis with a core including fiber-reinforced composite material as taught by Kardos as a means of selecting a known material (a fiber-reinforced composite material) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of a hockey/sports stick) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a covering (Fig. 9, Part No. 152; Fig. 11, Part No. 178) (Para. 0055, 0057) that covers at least part of the lattice.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the covering (152) includes fiber-reinforced composite material (Para. 0055) connected to the material of the lattice.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice (Para. 0055-0058) constitutes at least part of the shaft.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice constitutes at least part of the blade (Para. 0055-0058).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice constitutes at least part of the blade (Para. 0055-0058).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice comprises a framework of elongate members that intersect one another at nodes (See fig. 9-12) (Para. 0055-0058).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice includes a truss (Fig. 9, Part No. 152; Fig. 11, Part No. 178) (Para. 0055, 0057).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice (Para. 0055-0058) comprises peripheral portions (See Figures 1-12) that are part of walls of the hockey stick that define a periphery of at least one of the shaft and the blade (Para. 0055-0058).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches opposite ones of the peripheral portions (See fig. 9-12) of the lattice (Para. 0055-0058) are part of opposite ones of the walls of the hockey stick (See fig. 9-12).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice comprises a void (Para. 0031, 0033) between the peripheral portions of the lattice (See fig. 9-12).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a core (Para. 0033) disposed in the void of the lattice.
Regarding claim 26, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the core includes foam (Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the core includes elastomeric material (Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the of the lattice is first material of the lattice that makes up a first part of the lattice (Para. 0055); and the lattice comprises second material that is different from the material of the lattice and makes up a second part of the lattice (Para. 0055).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “additively-manufactured lattice” and “3D-printed fiber-reinforced composite material” is directed to a product (a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (additively-manufactured; 3D-printed). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of combination of Davis and Kardos teaches the final product of a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material and therefore meets the claim.
The modified Davis does not teach fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice.
Kardos (Figures 1-33) teaches a hockey core (100) including fiber-reinforced (Para. 0089) composite material (Para. 0042).
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 Davis with a core including fiber-reinforced composite material as taught by Kardos as a means of selecting a known material (a fiber-reinforced composite material) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of a hockey/sports stick) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 42, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches given ones of the nodes (see fig. 1) (Para. 0039) are thicker than respective ones of the elongate members that intersect one another thereat (See fig. 1).
Regarding claim 43, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches adjacent ones of the nodes (See 12) in a first region (184) of the lattice are located closer to one another than adjacent ones of the nodes (See fig. 12) in a second region (182) of the lattice (Para. 0058).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the covering (Fig. 9, Part No. 152; Fig. 11, Part No. 178) (Para. 0055, 0057) covers at least a majority of the lattice.
Regarding claim 45, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the covering (Fig. 9, Part No. 152; Fig. 11, Part No. 178) (Para. 0055, 0057) covers an entirety of the lattice.
Regarding claim 46, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the covering (152) includes fiber-reinforced composite material (Para. 0055) connected to the material of the lattice.
The modified Davis does not teach the fiber-reinforced composite material of the covering is first fiber-reinforced composite material of the covering that makes up a first part of the covering; and the covering comprises second fiber-reinforced composite material that is different from the first fiber-reinforced composite material of the covering and makes up a second part of the covering.
Kardos (Figures 1-33) teaches the fiber-reinforced composite material (Para. 0059) of the covering is first fiber-reinforced composite material of the covering that makes up a first part of the covering (Para. 0059); and the covering comprises second fiber-reinforced composite material (Para. 0059) that is different from the first fiber-reinforced composite material of the covering and makes up a second part of the covering (Para. 0059).
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 Davis with the covering comprises second fiber-reinforced composite material that is different from the first fiber-reinforced composite material of the covering as taught by Kardos as a means of using different lengths of carbon fiber tape to cover a core of a sports stick (Kardos: Para. 0059).
Regarding claim 47, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a lattice (Para. 0055-0058).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the additively-manufactured lattice is 3D-printed using continuous-fiber 3D printing” is directed to a product (a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (additively-manufactured; 3D-printed). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of combination of Davis and Kardos teaches the final product of a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 51, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a covering (Fig. 9, Part No. 152; Fig. 11, Part No. 178) (Para. 0055, 0057); and the fiber-reinforced composite material of the covering is fiber-reinforced composite material (Para. 0055).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “additively-manufactured covering” and “3D-printed fiber-reinforced composite material” is directed to a product (a covering comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (additively-manufactured; 3D-printed). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of Davis teaches the final product of a cover comprising fiber-reinforced composite material and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 56, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the lattice includes a plurality of distinct zones (See fig. 10-12) structurally different from one another.
Regarding claim 57, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the distinct zones of the lattice differ in stiffness (Para. 0049, 0053).
Regarding claim 59, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the distinct zones of the lattice differ in stiffness (Para. 0049, 0053).
The modified Davis does not teach a ratio of the stiffness of a first one of the distinct zones of the lattice over the stiffness of a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice is at least 40%.
It is noted that the prior art of Davis teaches a stiffness of the lattice can be varied (Davis: Para. 0049, 0053). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). 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 Davis with teach a ratio of the stiffness of a first one of the distinct zones of the lattice over the stiffness of a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice is at least 40% 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 60, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the distinct zones of the lattice differ in resilience (Para. 0049, 0053).
Regarding claim 62, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the distinct zones of the lattice differ in resilience (Para. 0049, 0053).
The modified Davis does not teach a ratio of the resilience of a first one of the distinct zones of the lattice over the resilience of a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice is at least 30%.
It is noted that the prior art of Davis teaches a resilience of the lattice can be varied (Davis: Para. 0049, 0053). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). 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 Davis with teach a ratio of the resilience of a first one of the distinct zones of the lattice over the resilience of a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice is at least 30% 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 63, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the distinct zones of the lattice include at least three distinct zones (See fig. 9-12).
Regarding claim 64, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the distinct zones of the lattice are layers of the lattice that are layered on one another (See fig. 9-12).
Regarding claim 65, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a density (Para. 0045) of the lattice in a first one of the distinct zones of the lattice is greater than the density of the lattice in a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice (Para. 0045).
Regarding claim 66, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a spacing of elongate members of the lattice in a first one of the distinct zones (See fig. 9-12) of the lattice is less than the spacing of elongate members of the lattice in a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice (See fig. 9-12).
Regarding claim 67, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches elongate members of the lattice in a first one of the distinct zones of the lattice are cross-sectionally larger (Para. 0048) than elongate members of the lattice in a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice (Para. 0048).
Regarding claim 68, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches an orientation of elongate members of the lattice in a first one of the distinct zones (See fig. 9-12) of the lattice is different from the orientation of elongate members of the lattice in a second one of the distinct zones of the lattice (See fig. 9-12).
Regarding claim 70, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the hockey stick is a player stick (Para. 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 78, Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a hockey stick (Para. 0049-0050) comprising: blade (Para 0055); and a shaft (Para. 0058); wherein: the hockey stick comprises a lattice (Para. 0055-0058).
It is noted that the prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “a shaft to be held by a user” as the prior art teaches a shaft that is able to be “a shaft to be held by a user” as claimed. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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)).
Davis does not teach the lattice including fiber-reinforced composite material, and the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice comprises fiber tapes positioned to form the lattice.
Kardos (Figures 1-33) teaches a hockey core (100) including fiber-reinforced (Para. 0089) composite material (Para. 0042), and the fiber-reinforced composite material of the core comprises fiber tapes (Para. 0034, 0052, 0059) positioned to form the core.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice comprises pre-impregnated fiber tapes positioned and cured to form the lattice” is directed to a product (a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (positioned and cured). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of combination of Davis and Kardos teaches the final product of a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material that comprises fiber tapes and therefore meets the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Davis with a core including fiber-reinforced composite material as taught by Kardos as a means of selecting a known material (a fiber-reinforced composite material) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of a hockey/sports stick) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 79, Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a hockey stick (Para. 0049-0050) comprising: a blade (Para 0055); and a shaft (Para. 0058); wherein: the hockey stick comprises lattice (Para. 0055-0058); and the hockey stick comprises a covering (Fig. 9, Part No. 152; Fig. 11, Part No. 178) (Para. 0055, 0057) that covers at least part of the lattice and includes fiber-reinforced composite material (Para. 0055) connected to the lattice.
It is noted that the prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “a shaft to be held by a user” as the prior art teaches a shaft that is able to be “a shaft to be held by a user” as claimed. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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)).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “an additively-manufactured covering that covers at least part of the lattice and includes 3D-printed fiber-reinforced composite material” is directed to a product (a covering comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (additively manufactured; 3D-printed). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of Davis teaches the final product of a covering comprising fiber-reinforced composite material and therefore meets the claim.
Davis does not teach the lattice including fiber-reinforced composite material.
Kardos (Figures 1-33) teaches a hockey core (100) including fiber-reinforced (Para. 0089) composite material (Para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Davis with a core including fiber-reinforced composite material as taught by Kardos as a means of selecting a known material (a fiber-reinforced composite material) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of a hockey/sports stick) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 235, Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a hockey stick (Para. 0049-0050) comprising: a blade (Para 0055); and a shaft (Para. 0058); wherein: the hockey stick comprises a lattice (Para. 0055-0058) including structural members that intersect at intersections which are three-dimensionally spaced from one another (See fig. 1); and at least one fiber of the fiber-reinforced composite material (Fig. 9, Part No. 152; Fig. 11, Part No. 178) (Para. 0055, 0057) extends along at least a majority of a length of the lattice.
It is noted that the prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “a shaft to be held by a user” as the prior art teaches a shaft that is able to be “a shaft to be held by a user” as claimed. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 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)).
Davis does not teach the lattice made of fiber-reinforced composite material.
Kardos (Figures 1-33) teaches a hockey core (100) including fiber-reinforced (Para. 0089) composite material (Para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Davis with a core including fiber-reinforced composite material as taught by Kardos as a means of selecting a known material (a fiber-reinforced composite material) based on its suitability for its intended use (construction of a hockey/sports stick) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Kardos, further in view of Lallemand (5333857).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a core (Para. 0033) disposed in the void of the lattice .
The modified Davis does not teach the core includes a plurality of core members separate from one another.
Lallemand (Figures 1-5) teaches the core includes a plurality of core members separate from one another (Col. 2, Lines 42-51).
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 Davis with a plurality of core members separate from one another as taught by Lallemand so as to adapt the resistance and the characteristics of each part to the particular local stresses of the sports/hockey stick (Lallemand: Col. 2, Lines 42-51).
Claim 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Kardos, further in view of Tse (20150266260).
Regarding claim 48, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the hockey stick comprises a lattice (Para. 0055-0058).
The modified Davis does not teach at least one fiber of the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice extends along at least a majority of a length of the lattice.
Tse (Figures 1-2) teaches at least one fiber of the fiber-reinforced composite material (Col. 4, Lines 33-49) of the lattice (Fig. 2, Part No. 24) extends along at least a majority of a length of the lattice (See fig. 2).
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 Davis with at least one fiber of the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice extends along at least a majority of a length of the lattice as taught by Tse as a means of providing sporting implement that is strengthened in both its longitudinal and transverse directions thereby providing a more continuous, unitary structure (Tse: Col. 4, Lines 33-49).
Regarding claim 49, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches the hockey stick comprises a lattice (Para. 0055-0058).
The modified Davis does not teach the at least one fiber of the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice extends along an entirety of the length of the lattice.
Tse (Figures 1-2) teaches the at least one fiber of the fiber-reinforced composite material (Col. 4, Lines 33-49) of the lattice (Fig. 2, Part No. 24) extends along an entirety of the length of the lattice (See fig. 2).
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 Davis with at least one fiber of the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice extends along an entirety of the length of the lattice as taught by Tse as a means of providing sporting implement that is strengthened in both its longitudinal and transverse directions thereby providing a more continuous, unitary structure (Tse: Col. 4, Lines 33-49).
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Kardos, further in view of Jeanneau (20140323250).
Regarding claim 71, the modified Davis (Figures 1-12) teaches a hockey stick ().
The modified Davis does not teach the hockey stick is a goalie stick comprising a paddle.
Jeanneau (Figure 10) teaches the hockey stick is a goalie stick comprising a paddle (Para. 0051-0052).
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 Davis with the hockey stick is a goalie stick as taught by Jeanneau as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a hockey stick) for another (a goalie stick) to obtain predictable results (a stick used to play hockey) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of the prior art of Davis and Kardos in the rejection of claim 1 is improper because one or ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the two references, this is not found persuasive because obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art of Davis and Kardos disclose different configurations/designs of a core of a hockey stick.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Kardos does not teach a lattice including fiber-reinforced composite material because Kardos discloses a feature/foam that is disclosed by Davis. This is not found persuasive because claim 1 merely recites “the hockey stick comprises an additively-manufactured lattice including 3D- printed fiber-reinforced composite material”. The claim recitation of “an additively-manufactured lattice including 3D-printed fiber-reinforced composite material” is directed to a product (a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (additively-manufactured; 3D-printed) (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Kardos teaches providing a hockey stick core with a fiber-reinforced composite material (Para. 0042, 0089) as claimed. Applicant’s arguments directed to claim 1 are not persuasive because the combination of Davis and Kardos teaches the claimed invention of claim 1.
Applicant argues that the combination of Davis and Kardos in the rejection of claim 78 is improper because the combination of the two references does not teach “the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice comprises pre-impregnated fiber tapes positioned and cured to form the lattice”, this is not found persuasive because the prior art of Kardos (Para. 0059) discloses: “in another implementation, the foam core 100 may be wrapped with one or more layers of carbon fiber tape prior to injection of the pins. The carbon tape may, in one example, be preimpregnated with epoxy resin, or another adhesive material, which may be molded during one or more processing stages described in the proceeding disclosures... In another implementation, it is contemplated that the wrapped foam core 1600 may, additionally or alternatively, utilize one or more discontinuous lengths of carbon fiber tape, without departing from the scope of these disclosures”. It is noted that the claim recitation of “the fiber-reinforced composite material of the lattice comprises pre-impregnated fiber tapes positioned and cured to form the lattice” is directed to a product (a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material) that is made by a process (positioned and cured). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of combination of Davis and Kardos teaches the final product of a lattice comprising fiber-reinforced composite material that comprises fiber tapes and therefore meets the claim.
Applicant argues that the fiber tapes of Kardos are wrapped around a core and the core itself does not comprise fiber tapes, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the term “comprise” is defined to mean “made up of; constitute”. The prior art of Kardos teaches a core that is made up of/constitutes fiber tape as claimed (See Kardos: Para. 0059).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711