DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 36 are allowed.
Claim 7 includes limitations directed towards 7. (Original): The training device of claim 6, wherein the two interlocking halves with at least one slotted groove or recessed area are secured together with an adhesive tape, an interlocking hook and fastener strip or a rubber band positioned in the at least one slotted groove or recessed area. These limitations when viewed in combination with any intervening and parent claims and any remaining limitations of the claim are seen to provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art of record.
Claim 36 includes limitations directed towards 36. (Original): The continental grip training device of claim 35, wherein the two interlocking halves with at least one slotted groove or recessed area are secured together with an adhesive tape, an interlocking hook and fastener strip or a rubber band positioned in the at least one slotted groove or recessed area. These limitations when viewed in combination with any intervening and parent claims and any remaining limitations of the claim are seen to provide patentable distinction over the cited prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thomas (US 200800328332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches 1. (Original): A tennis and other racquet and paddle sport training device for removably or permanently installing onto a grip/handle of a racquet or paddle for positioning a player's dominant hand on the grip/handle to teach or train the player one-handed strokes requiring different grips of the player's dominant hand on the grip/handle of the racquet or paddle, wherein the device comprises: See [0037+] which teaches the attachability of the grip., i) an annular elongated member for positioning over a grip of a racquet or paddle handle including a top end and a bottom end and at least a top end opening, See Fig. 1A which shows the grip installed over the racket handle., ii) a contoured thumb heel plate or pad protrusion extending outward and diagonally downward starting from about one-third down to about two-thirds down from the top end of the device to the bottom end for positioning and supporting a thumb heel area of the player's dominate hand on the device, See Fig. 1A which shows the plate such as that near 21 to support the player thumb heel. , iii) a diagonal or horizontal hand divider plate or pad protrusion located from about one quarter down to about half-way down from the top end of the device for positioning and supporting an area between the thumb and the index finger of the player's dominate hand on the device, and See Fig. 1A wherein the ledge between the 2 and 16 provide support between the users thumb and index finger., iv) a recessed palm area for positioning and supporting the palma fascia area of the player's dominate hand on the device. See Fig. 1B wherein the depression near 40 below 2 supports the users palm as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Thomas teaches 2. (Original): The training device of claim 1 further including a thumb groove or depression, an index finger groove or depression or a combination thereof for positioning and supporting the thumb and/or index finger of the player's dominate hand on the device. See Fig 1A and 1B wherein items 2 and 4 are the thumb and index finger grooves.
Regarding claim 3, Thomas teaches 3. (Currently Amended): The training device of claim 1 further including a middle finger groove or depression, a ring finger groove or depression, a pinky finger groove or depression or combinations thereof for positioning and supporting the middle finger, ringer finger and/or pinky finger of the player's dominate hand on the device. See Fig. 1A, [0020+].
Regarding claim 4, Thomas teaches 4. (Currently Amended): The training device of claim 1, wherein the annular elongated member is positioned over the grip of the racquet handle for teaching or training for teaching or training one-handed tennis strokes selected from the group consisting of the serve, the volley, the eastern one-handed backhand, the semi-western one-handed backhand, the continental forehand, the eastern forehand, the semi-western forehand, the western forehand, the soft semi- western forehand, the soft western forehand and the overhead. See Fig. 1A wherein the claim recites the intended use of the apparatus. Additionally, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Moreover, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Thomas teaches 5. (Currently Amended): The training device of claim 1, wherein the annular elongated member for positioning over a grip of a racquet or paddle handle comprises a one piece sleeve for sliding over a butt end of the grip or handle of the racquet or paddle or two interlocking halves for positioning over and around the grip or handle of the racquet or paddle. See Fig. 1A, which shows the grip positioned over the grip of the paddle.
Regarding claim 8, Thomas teaches 8. (Currently Amended): The training device of claim 1, wherein the annular elongated member comprises a cellulosic material or a polymeric material selected from the group consisting of polyester, polyurethane, polyamide, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polylactic acid, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, ethylene-propylene copolymer, ethylene-propylene-butene terpolymer, neoprene, and silicone based polymers. See [0029+].
Regarding claim 12, Thomas teaches 12. (Currently Amended): The training device of claim 1, wherein the racquet or paddle is selected from the group consisting of a tennis racquet, a squash racquet, a racquetball racquet, a pickleball paddle, a platform tennis paddle and a paddle tennis paddle. See Abstract.
Regarding claim 13, Thomas teaches 13. (Currently Amended): The training device of claim 1, wherein the other racquet and paddle sport are selected from the group consisting of squash, racquetball, pickleball, platform tennis and paddle tennis. See Abstract.
Regarding claim 14, Thomas teaches 14. (Currently Amended): A racquet or paddle including the training device of claim 1. See [0003+].
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stafford (US 5984795 A).
Regarding claim 41, Stafford teaches 41. (Original): A two-handed backhand grip training device for removably or permanently installing onto a grip/handle of a racquet or paddle for positioning a player's bottom dominant hand and top non-dominant hand on the grip/handle to teach or train the player a two-handed backhand stroke, wherein the device comprises: See Fig. 2; 6:59+, i) an annular elongated member for positioning over a grip of a racquet or paddle handle including a top end and a bottom end and at least a top end opening, See Fig. 2, ii) a first contoured thumb heel plate or pad protrusion extending outward and downwardly along a B1 bevel of the handle starting from proximate the top end of the device to about one-third down from the top end of the device for positioning and supporting a thumb heel area of the player's top non-dominate hand on the device, See Fig. 2 Referencing the players top hand., iii) a second contoured thumb heel plate or pad protrusion extending outward and diagonally downward starting from about two-thirds down from the top end of the device at a B8 bevel of the handle to the bottom end of the device at the B 1 bevel of the handle for positioning and supporting a thumb heel area of the player's bottom dominate hand on the device, See Fig. 2 Referencing the players bottom hand., iv) a diagonal or horizontal hand divider plate or pad protrusion located about half-way down from the top end of the device and extending outward and across B8, B1 and B2 bevels of the handle for positioning and supporting a pinky finger heel area of the player's top non- dominate hand and an area between the thumb and the index finger of the player's bottom dominate hand on the device, See Fig. 2 Referencing the middle section where the players top hand pinky rests., v) a first recessed palm area for positioning and supporting a palma fascia area of the player's top non-dominate hand on the device, and See Fig. 2 Referencing the players palm on the top hand which is in the recessed portion., vi) a second recessed palm area for positioning and supporting the palma fascia area of the player's bottom dominate hand on the device. See Fig. 2 Referencing the players palm on the bottom hand which is in the bottom recess.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 200800328332 A1) in view of Hagey (US 62139002 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Hagey teaches 6. (Original): The training device of claim 5, wherein the two interlocking halves include a slotted groove or recessed area proximate the top end of the device, a slotted groove or recessed area proximate the bottom end of the device or a combination thereof. See Fig. 19A, (45)(48)(50) which shows a slotted grove in 45 such as that provided with 48 and 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thomas with Hagey to provide means to attach the grip to the shaft.
Claims 31-34, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 200800328332 A1) in view of Clarke (WO 9947214 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Thomas teaches 31. (Original): A continental grip training device for removably or permanently installing onto a grip/handle of a racquet or paddle for positioning a player's dominant hand on the grip/handle to teach or train the player the strokes associated with a continental grip, wherein the device comprises: See Abstract; [0003+], i) an annular elongated member for positioning over a grip of a racquet or paddle handle including a top end and a bottom end and at least a top end opening, See Fig. 1A which shows the grip installed over the racket handle. iv) a recessed palm area for positioning and supporting a palma fascia area of the player's dominate hand on the device. See Fig. 1B wherein the wherein the area below 2 extends as claimed and supports the players palms.
Clarke does teach what the primary reference is silent on including ii) a contoured thumb heel plate or pad protrusion extending outward and diagonally downward from the device starting from a B8 bevel of the handle at about midway down from the top end of the device to a B1 bevel of the handle at the bottom end of the device for positioning and supporting a thumb heel area of the player's dominate hand on the device, See Fig. 3; (17) the thumb bevel may be considered (17) and extends downward to the bevel at the bottom of the grip., iii) a horizontal or diagonal plate or pad protrusion located about a third down from the top end of the device and extending outward and across B8, B1 and B2 bevels of the handle for positioning and supporting a palm area between the thumb and the index finger of the player's dominate hand on the device, and See Fig. 2 wherein the area below 25 to the bottom of the grip can be considered the pad protrusion functioning as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thomas with Clarke to provide a grip which a user could more easily utilize two hands with.
Regarding claim 32, Thomas teaches 32. (Original): The continental grip training device of claim 31 further including a thumb groove or depression, an index finger groove or depression or a combination thereof for positioning and supporting the thumb and/or index finger of the player's dominate hand on the device. See Fig 1A and 1B wherein items 2 and 4 are the thumb and index finger grooves.
Regarding claim 33, Thomas teaches 33. (Currently Amended): The continental grip training device of claim 31 further including a middle finger groove or depression, a ring finger groove or depression, a pinky finger groove or depression or combinations thereof for positioning and supporting the middle finger, ringer finger and/or pinky finger of the player's dominate hand on the device. See Fig. 1A, [0020+].
Regarding claim 34, Thomas teaches 34. (Currently Amended): The continental grip training device of claim 31, wherein the annular elongated member for positioning over a grip of a racquet or paddle handle comprises a one piece sleeve for sliding over a butt end of the grip or handle of the racquet or paddle or two interlocking halves for positioning over and around the grip or handle of the racquet or paddle. See Fig. 1A which shows the grip positioned over the grip of the paddle.
Regarding claim 37, Thomas teaches 37. (Currently Amended): The continental grip training device of claim 31, wherein the annular elongated member comprises a cellulosic material or a polymeric material selected from the group consisting of polyester, polyurethane, polyamide, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polylactic acid, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, ethylene- propylene copolymer, ethylene-propylene-butene terpolymer, neoprene, and silicone based polymers. See [0029+].
Regarding claim 38, Thomas teaches 38. (Currently Amended): The continental grip training device of claim 31, wherein the racquet or paddle is selected from the group consisting of a tennis racquet, a squash racquet, a racquetball racquet, a pickleball paddle, a platform tennis paddle and a paddle tennis paddle. See Abstract.
Regarding claim 39, Thomas teaches 39. (Currently Amended): The continental grip training device of claim 31, wherein the other racquet and paddle sport are selected from the group consisting of squash, racquetball, pickleball, platform tennis and paddle tennis. See Abstract.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 200800328332 A1) in view of Clarke (WO 9947214 A1) and Hagey (US 62139002 B1).
Regarding claim 35, Hagey teaches 35. (Original): The continental grip training device of claim 34, wherein the two interlocking halves include a slotted groove or recessed area proximate the top end of the device, a slotted groove or recessed area proximate the bottom end of the device or a combination thereof. See Fig. 19A, (45)(48)(50) which shows a slotted grove in 45 such as that provided with 48 and 50.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Thomas with Hagey to provide means to attach the grip to the shaft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cub Valentin DO 2928995 A1 - which shows a thumb heel plate, divider plate or pad and a palm area.
Dahlstrom US 5657985 A - which shows a thumb heel plate, divider plate, palm area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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 L 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711