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 .
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 15-17, 20, 21, 22, and 24-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5377849 (Martin hereinafter) in view of US 6615999 (Culp hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Martin teaches a sports equipment drying rack (Figure 1) and inherent method of use that discloses assembling a drying rack from a plurality of separable bodies (Evident from Figures 1-5); arranging multiple articles of personal equipment on the drying rack (Figures 4 and 5 with Column 3 Lines 47-49); and providing an external airflow source in a location that is in the windward direction relative to the rack, wherein the external airflow source directs air toward the rack (Column 4 Lines 35-37 implies that an air source is provided to provide external airflow to dry the racked equipment).
Martin is silent with respect to arranging multiple articles of personal equipment on the drying rack such that absorbent material in each article is exposed in a windward direction.
However, it is well-known in the art of drying sports equipment and within the athletic world, particularly in ice hockey, that when drying equipment the user can arrange multiple articles of personal equipment on the drying rack such that absorbent material in each article is exposed in a windward direction to facilitate drying. Martin in Colum 1 Lines 11-24 details this knowledge to dry the equipment and prevent mildew and dampness. Additionally, the presence dampness on the equipment implies that there is an absorbent material on the equipment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to face the absorbent side of the wet/damp equipment towards an airflow to hasten the drying process and prevent mildew or odor from building up as taught in Martin Column 1 Lines 11-24.
Martin is silent with respect to the bodies being planks.
However, Culp teaches a modular construction system using interlocking planks. The resultant combination would change the piping bodies of Martin with interlocking slots and planks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the structural components of Martin from pipes to planks as taught by Culp to allow for easy repair and replacement per Column 3 Lines 20-38 of Culp)
Regarding claim 16, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the multiple articles of personal equipment comprise a complete set of hockey pads (Martin Figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that some of the multiple articles of personal equipment include non-absorbent sides (Per claim one, at least one non-absorbent side of the equipment [hard side of the shin guards, outside of the helmet] would be facing away from the wind direction since they are opposite the absorbent side), and the arranging includes orienting the non-absorbent sides away from the windward direction (Evident from Figures 4 and 5 of Martin and it is well-known in the art that a player would position their equipment for wind/airflow to interact with the soft/absorbent side of their equipment therefore meaning the non-absorbent or hard protective side to be directed away from the wind since per claim one, at least one non-absorbent side of the equipment [hard side of the shin guards, outside of the helmet] would be facing away from the wind direction since they are opposite the absorbent side).
Regarding claim 20, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the assembling includes interlocking the planks via a press fit (Evident of Culp and Column 1 Lines 27-35 detailing the use of press-fit structures).
Regarding claim 21, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 20 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that at least two of the planks include a slot, and wherein the assembling includes interlocking the slots (Figures 1a, 1b, 5, 10 of Culp showing the layouts of the planks and slots).
Regarding claim 22, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 21 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the planks each have a substantially equal thickness, and wherein the slots have a thickness substantially equal to the thickness of the planks (Evident from Figures 1a, 1b, 5, 10 of Culp with Column 6 Lines 16-42).
Regarding claim 24, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the plurality of separable planks comprise a foundation beam and pair of feet (Martin Figures 1-3 with beam 28 and feet 20/24 as modified to be planks per Culp), and wherein the assembling includes interlocking the feet with the foundation beam such that the feet extend perpendicular to the foundation beam (Joint at 26 between 20 and 28 of Martin).
Regarding claim 25, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 24 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the plurality of separable planks further comprise at least one shelf (Shelf 40 of Martin in Figures 1 and 2), and wherein the assembling includes interlocking the at least one shelf with a vertically extending plank such that the at least one shelf is cantilevered and extends perpendicular to the foundation beam (Vertically extending plank equal to 38/46 of Martin to be a plank for the shelf 40 of Martin).
Regarding claim 26, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 25 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the arranging includes positioning one of the articles of personal equipment such that it sits on the at least one shelf and leans against the vertically extending plank (Evident from Figure 5 with skates B of Martin).
Regarding claim 27, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 24 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the plurality of separable planks further comprise at least one stop (Stops being 66/68/80 of Martin in Figures 1-3), and wherein the assembling includes interlocking the at least one stop with a vertically extending plank such that the at least one stop is cantilevered and extends parallel to the foundation beam (Resultant combination with the tubes being planks in Martin per Culp and stop 66/68 being perpendicular to a portion of the plane of 38/46 as seen in Martin Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 28, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 27 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the arranging includes hanging at least one of the articles of personal equipment on the at least one stop (Martin Figure 5 shows the elbow pads E on the stop).
Regarding claim 29, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 24 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the plurality of separable planks further comprise a first lower beam (13 left side of Figures 1 and 2 of Martin), a second lower beam (13 right side of Figures 1 and 2 of Martin), and a lower arm (Arm 54 of Martin); the assembling includes interlocking the first and second lower beams with the foundation beam such that the first and second lower beams extend vertically from the foundation beam (Figures 1 and 2 of Martin); and the assembling includes interlocking the lower arm with the first and second lower beams such that the lower arm extends parallel to the foundation beam and is positioned vertically above the foundation beam (Evident from Figures 1 and 2 of Martin).
Regarding claim 30, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 29 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the plurality of separable planks further comprise a first stop and a second stop (First stop being the left side 48 of Martin and the second stop being the right side 48), and wherein the assembling includes interlocking the first stop with the first lower beam and interlocking the second stop with the second lower beam such that the first and second stops are cantilevered and extend parallel to the foundation beam (Evident form Martin Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 31, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 30 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the assembling includes interlocking the first and second stops such that they extend towards one another (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the inner ends of the stops 48 of Martin extend towards each other).
Regarding claim 32, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 30 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the plurality of separable planks further comprise a first shelf and a second shelf (First shelf being the left side 40 in Figures 1 and 2 while the second shelf is the right side 40 of Figures 1 and 2), and wherein the assembling includes interlocking the first shelf with the first lower beam and interlocking the second shelf with the second lower beam such that the first and second shelves are cantilevered and extend perpendicular to the foundation beam (Evident from Figures 1 and 2 of Martin per the teachings of Culp).
Regarding claim 33, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 32 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the assembling includes interlocking the first and second shelves ($0 of Martin in Figures 1 and 2) vertically below the first and second stops on the first and second lower beams (stops 48 in Figures 1 and 2 of Martin), respectively.
Martin is silent with respect to the assembling includes interlocking the first and second shelves vertically above the first and second stops on the first and second lower beams, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the mounting locations of the shelves 40 and stops 48 of Martin, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 34, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 29 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the plurality of separable planks further comprise an upper beam (Martin Figures 1 and 2 with 62) and an upper arm (Arm 82 of Martin Figures 1); the assembling includes interlocking the upper beam with the lower arm such that the upper beam extends vertically from the lower arm (62 of Martin is connected to 54 in Figures 1 and 2) and is positioned horizontally between the first and second lower beams (Figures 1 and 2 of Martin); and the assembling includes interlocking the upper arm with the upper beam such that the upper arm extends parallel to the lower arm and is positioned vertically above the lower arm (Martin Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 35, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 34 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose that the arranging includes hanging at least one of the articles of personal equipment on the upper arm (Evident from Figures 4 and 5 of Martin).
Regarding claim 36, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Martin and Culp would further disclose removing the multiple articles of personal equipment from the drying rack and disassembling the drying rack (Inherent of the rack shown in Martin).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5377849 (Martin) in view of US 6615999 (Culp) and further in view of US 8020716 (Vitale hereinafter).
Regarding claim 23, Martin’s modified teachings are described above in claim 15 where the combination of Martin and Culp but are silent with respect that at least one of the planks includes a through-hole opening, and wherein the assembling includes inserting a portion of another of the planks in the through- hole opening.
However, Vitale teaches a sports equipment drying rack that discloses at least one of the planks includes a through-hole opening, and wherein the assembling includes inserting a portion of another of the planks in the through- hole opening (Figure 1 with through holes 16 where the resultant combination would place through holes in the structure of Martin/Culp for additional mounting arms and height adjustments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plank structure of Martin and Culp with at least one through hole of Vitale to allow for a user to place additional equipment drying arms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762