DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9-10, 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 20 includes limitations directed towards 20. A bumper for a tennis racket, the bumper including: a plurality of ridges on an outer surface of the bumper, the ridges configured to be aligned with a direction of flow of air across the tennis racket when installed on a racket and the racket is swung, the ridges defining channels between adjacent pairs of ridges; and a plurality of dimples located in the channels defined by the ridges. 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 4 includes limitations directed towards 4. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein each dimple extends across at least 50% of a width of a corresponding channel. 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 9 includes limitations directed towards 9. The sporting item of claim 5, further comprising a chamber defined in the sporting implement, the chamber including one or more weights movable within the chamber to adjust a balance of the sporting implement. 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 18 includes limitations directed towards 18. The sporting item of claim 17, wherein the dimples are arranged in one or more rows in the channels, the one or more rows extending in a direction from a front to a rear of a helmet. 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 19 includes limitations directed towards 19. The sporting item of claim 17, wherein one or more of the channels are associated with an air vent, the one or more channels configured to encourage the flow of air in relation to the air vent. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 3997170 A) in view of Park (US 20240350869 A1) and Sato (JP 2009000281 A).
Regarding claim 1, Goldberg teaches 1. An aerodynamic sporting item including: a plurality of ridges on a surface of the sporting item, the ridges aligned with a direction of flow of air across the sporting item when used, See Fig. 1 and 2, (52)(53), the ridges defining channels between adjacent pairs of ridges; See Fig. 1 and 2, (42)(43)(44).
Park does teach what the primary reference is silent on including and a plurality of dimples located in the channels defined by the ridges. See [0089+] which speaks of the use of dimples to reduce wind resistance.
Sato does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a plurality of dimple rows. See Fig. 2; (20)(21) which shows a pair of dimple rows.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Park to reduce wind resistance and increase speed (see [0089+]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Sato to reduce air resistance and increase speed.
Regarding claim 2, Sato teaches 2. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein the dimples are arranged in one or more rows in the channels. See Fig. 2; (20)(21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Sato to reduce air resistance and increase speed.
Regarding claim 3, Sato teaches 3. The sporting item of claim 2, wherein the dimples are arranged in a single row in each of the channels. See Fig. 2; (20)(21) which teaches dimples in a single row which may be easily incorporated into the channels of Goldberg.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Sato to reduce air resistance and increase speed.
Regarding claim 5, Goldberg teaches 5. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein the sporting item comprises an implement configured to be swung by a user, the channels aligned with the direction of flow of air across the sporting implement when swung. See Fig. 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 8, Sato teaches 8. The sporting item of claim 5, wherein the one or more rows of dimples are perpendicular to a striking face of the sporting implement. See Fig. 2; (20)(21) which when combined with Goldberg would allow the dimples to be perpendicular in the channels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Sato to reduce air resistance and increase speed.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches 11. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein the dimples comprise spherical dimples. See [0089+] which speaks of the use of dimples to reduce wind resistance. The dimples are shown as spherical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Park to reduce wind resistance and increase speed (see [0089+]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 3997170 A) in view of Park (US 20240350869 A1) and Sato (JP 2009000281 A) and Velke (WO 9400203 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Velke teaches 6. The sporting item of claim 5, wherein the sporting implement comprises a tennis racket. See Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Velke to allow a racket to experience reduced drag during a swing.
Regarding claim 7, Velke teaches 7. The sporting item of claim 6, wherein the tennis racket comprises a handle and a frame extending from the handle, wherein at least 50% of a surface of the frame is covered with dimples. See Fig. 1 which dhows the dimples (4) covering more than 50 % of the racket.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Velke to allow a racket to experience reduced drags during a swing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 3997170 A) in view of Boyd (US 20120322573 A1) and Park (US 20240350869 A1) and Sato (JP 2009000281 A).
Regarding claim 12, Boyd teaches 12. The sporting item of claim 11, wherein the dimples are between about 0.4mm and 1.0mm in depth and between about 1.0mm and 5.0mm in diameter. See [0041+].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Boyd to reduce drag on the sport implement.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 3997170 A) in view of Henrikson (US 20180353818 A1) and Park (US 20240350869 A1) and Sato (JP 2009000281 A).
Regarding claim 13, Henrikson teaches 13. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein the channels are curved in cross section. See Fig. 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Henrikson to improve the aerodynamics of the club head (See [0177+]).
Regarding claim 14, Henrikson teaches 14. The sporting item of claim 13, wherein the channels curve continuously between adjacent pairs of ridges. See Fig. 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Henrikson to improve the aerodynamics of the club head (See [0177+]).
Regarding claim 15, Henrikson teaches 15. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein the ridges comprise an elongate point between adjacent channels. See Fig. 12 which shows the peak on the ridges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Henrikson to provide turbulators to increase the speed of the sports implement.
Regarding claim 16, Henrikson teaches 16. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein the channels are between about 0.2mm and 3mm in depth and 5mm in width. See [0070+] which speaks of optimizing the side of the ridges and subsequently channels to increase airflow. The examiner notes that the channel depth and width is a result effective variable. In Re Aller states that "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 MPEP 2144.05 II) As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the combination to optimize air flow thereby obtaining optimal ranges by routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Henrikson.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg (US 3997170 A) in view of Park (US 20240350869 A1) and Rampell (US 20060191061 A1) and Sato (JP 2009000281 A).
Regarding claim 17, Rampell teaches 17. The sporting item of claim 1, wherein the sporting item comprises a helmet configured to be worn by a user. See Fig. 1 which shows a helmet with dimples (16), this could be easily incorporated into the ridges and channels of Claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Goldberg with Rampell provide a protective helmet with improved air flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cleghorn US 10245481 B1; Saso US 20170312591 A1; Solheim US 20140057737 A1; Nelms US 5700208 A; Nagahisa JP 2002272883 A; Mori JP 2001259089 A – which are directed towards sporting goods with dimples, ridges etc…for aerodynamics.
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