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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation in claim 6 of “said releasably securable engagement of said third section to said second section” is indefinite because claim 1 (the claim on which claim 6 is dependent) recites “said third section being foldably connected to said second section by a foldable line and configured to be folded along said foldable line into releasable secureable engagement with said first section to enclose the heel and releasably secure said stick wrap to the heel”. It is noted that claim 1 states that the third section is in “secureable engagement with said first section”. Claim 6 states that the third section is in secureable engagement with the second section and is therefore indefinite. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim recitation of “said releasably securable engagement of said third section to said second section achieved by a first releasably securable connector located on said outer surface of said first section and by a second releasably securable connector located on said inner surface of said third section” to mean --said releasably securable engagement of said third section to said first section--.
The term “generally” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The recitation in claim 16 of “ bringing said second strap portion into engagement with another portion of said stick, whereupon said stick wrap is wrapped about said stick with a portion of said first strap portion being located on a first side of the heel and a portion of said second strap portion being located on a second side of the heel to thereby releasably secure said stick wrap to said heel” is indefinite because claim 16 previously recites “said stick wrap including a first wrapping portion, a second wrapping portion, and an intermediate portion”. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim recitation of “bringing said second strap portion into engagement with another portion of said stick, whereupon said stick wrap is wrapped about said stick with a portion of said first strap portion being located on a first side of the heel and a portion of said second strap portion being located on a second side of the heel to thereby releasably secure said stick wrap to said heel” to mean --bringing said second wrapping portion into engagement with another portion of said stick, whereupon said stick wrap is wrapped about said stick with a portion of said first wrapping portion being located on a first side of the heel and a portion of said second wrapping portion being located on a second side of the heel to thereby releasably secure said stick wrap to said heel--.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (6129638).
Regarding claim 10, Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches a training device for training a person to accomplish a battle for a puck or a ball in a sport making use of a stick having a heel, said training device comprising: a base connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 12) (Col. 3, Lines 9-12); an elongated resilient member (Fig. 2, Part No. 23) (Col. 3, Lines 24-25) having a distal end portion, and a proximal end portion, said proximal end portion being connected to said base connector (12), said resilient member being configured to stretch from a unstretched state to a stretched state when a first force is applied to it (Col. 3, Lines 24-25), and to automatically return to said unstretched state when the first force is released (Col. 3, Lines 24-25); and a stick wrap (Fig. 2, Part No. 17), said stick wrap including a first wrapping portion, a second wrapping portion, an intermediate portion (Fig. 2, Part No. 34), and releasably securable connectors (Fig. 2, Part No. 21, 36), said intermediate portion interconnecting said first and second wrapping portions and holding said first wrapping portion spaced apart from said second wrapping portion (See fig. 2), said intermediate portion (34) being connected to said distal end of said resilient member (23) between said first wrapping portion and said second wrapping portion (See fig. 2), whereupon said releasably securable connectors (21, 36) are brought into engagement with each other, whereupon said stick wrap is resistant to accidental displacement.
It is noted that applicant’s invention (directed to an apparatus) is a strap having one end configured to be connected to a base/stationary member, and an opposite end configured to be connected to a portion of a hockey stick blade. The “base” and “hockey stick” are not part of the claimed apparatus as the claimed apparatus is the training device (i.e. the “base connector”, “elongated resilient member”, and “stick wrap”). Therefore, limitations directed to using the claimed apparatus with the “base” and/or “hockey stick” are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus.
It is noted that the claim recitations of “configured to connect said device to a base, said base being in a form of a stationary member”, “whereupon it provides resistance to a movement of the stick replicating a face-off motion”, “configured to be releasably connected to said distal end portion”, “said first wrapping portion being configured to be wrapped about and brought into engagement with a first portion of the stick on a first side of the heel, said second wrapping portion being configured to be wrapped about and brought into engagement with a second portion of the stick on a second side of the heel, the second side of the heel being opposite the first side of the heel, whereupon when said stick wrap is wrapped about the stick”, “to thereby releasably secure said stick wrap to the heel”, and “said stick wrap is resistant to accidental displacement from the heel” are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus. 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)).
Regarding claim 11, Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said base connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 12) (Col. 3, Lines 9-12) is in a form of a loop.
It is noted that the prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “configured to encircle the base” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Davis.
Regarding claim 12, Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said base connector comprises an elongated base strap having a distal end portion (See fig. 2), a proximal end portion (See fig. 2), a distal connector (13), and a proximal connector (25), said distal end portion of said elongated base strap being connected to said proximal end of said resilient member (Fig. 2, Part No. 23), said distal connector being secured to said elongated base strap adjacent said distal end portion of said elongated base strap (See fig. 2), said proximal connector (25) being connected to said proximal end portion of said elongated base strap (See fig. 2), said distal connector and said proximal connector being releasably securable to each other to form said loop (Col. 3, Lines 4-12 and Lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 13, Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches the distal end portion of the elongated base strap (12) includes a stop (39) (Col. 3, Lines 59-61).
It is noted that he prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “configured to engage a door jamb to releasably secure said base strap to said door jamb” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Davis.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102()a)(1) as being anticipated by Caluori (5584481).
Regarding claim 16, Caluori (Figures 1-3) teaches a method of training a person to accomplish a battle for a puck or a ball in a sport making use of a stick having a heel and a shaft, said method comprising: providing a training device including a base connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 134), a resilient member (116) (Col. 5, Lines 1-9) and a stick wrap (Fig. 3, Part No. 108) (Col. 3, Lines 43-47), said resilient member having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion (See fig. 1), said proximal end portion being connected to said base connector (See fig. 1-2), said resilient member being configured to stretch from a unstretched state to a stretched state when a first force is applied to it (Col. 2, Lines 62-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-9), and to automatically return to said unstretched state when the first force is released (Col. 5, Lines 1-9), whereupon it provides resistance to the movement of the stick replicating a face off motion (Col. 5, Lines 1-9), said stick wrap (108) including a first wrapping portion (Fig. 3, Part No. 142), a second wrapping portion (144), and an intermediate portion (138) (Col. 4, Lines 50-58) connected to said first and second wrapping portions, said intermediate portion (138) being connected to said distal end of said main resilient member (116); utilizing said base connector (134) to secure said training device to a stationary base (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 124); bringing said first wrapping portion into engagement with a portion of said stick (See fig. 3), bringing said wrapping portion into engagement with another portion of said stick (See fig. 3), whereupon said stick wrap is wrapped about said stick with a portion of said first wrapping portion being located on a first side of the heel and a portion of said second wrapping portion being located on a second side of the heel to thereby releasably secure said stick wrap to said heel (See fig. 3), whereupon said stick wrap is resistant to accidental displacement from the heel (Col. 4, Lines 50-65); and the person grasping the stick by the handle moving said stick to replicate a face-off motion to cause said resilient member to stretch (See fig. 1), whereupon the stretching of said resilient member provides resistance to the face-off motion of the stick (See fig. 1) (Col. 2, Lines 62-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 17, Caluori (Figures 1-3) teaches the sport is hockey and wherein the stick is a hockey stick having a blade connected to the shaft by the heel (See fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Caluori (Figures 1-3) teaches said base connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 134) is in the form of a loop configured to encircle the base (124).
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 1-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (6129638) in view of Champion (20140200498).
Regarding claim 1, Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches a training device, said training device comprising: a base connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 12) (Col. 3, Lines 9-12); an elongated resilient member (Fig. 2, Part No. 23) (Col. 3, Lines 24-25) having a distal end portion, and a proximal end portion, said proximal end portion being connected to said base connector (12), said resilient member being configured to stretch from a unstretched state to a stretched state when a first force is applied to it (Col. 3, Lines 24-25), and to automatically return to said unstretched state when the first force is released (Col. 3, Lines 24-25),; and a stick wrap (Fig. 2, Part No. 17) configured to be releasably connected to said distal end portion, said stick wrap (17) having an outer surface, an inner surface, a first section, a second section, and a third section (See fig. 2), said first and second sections being secured together and forming a hollow pocket between said inner surface of said first and second sections (Col. 3, Lines 49-54), said third section being connected to said second section (See fig. 2) and configured to be folded into releasable secureable engagement with said first section, whereupon said stick wrap is resistant to accidental displacement (Col. 3, Lines 49-54).
It is noted that applicant’s invention (directed to an apparatus) is a strap having one end configured to be connected to a base/stationary member, and an opposite end configured to be connected to a portion of a hockey stick blade. The “base” and “hockey stick” are not part of the claimed apparatus as the claimed apparatus is the training device (i.e. the “base connector”, “elongated resilient member”, and “stick wrap”). Therefore, limitations directed to using the claimed apparatus with the “base” and/or “hockey stick” are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus.
It is noted that the claim recitations of “for training a person to accomplish a battle for a puck or a ball in a sport making use of a stick having a heel”, “configured to connect said device to a base, said base being in a form of a stationary member”, “whereupon it provides resistance to a movement of the stick replicating a face-off motion”, “configured to be releasably connected to said distal end portion”, “said hollow pocket being configured to receive the heel with one portion of the stick on a first side of the heel extending out of said pocket on a first side of said pocket and a second portion of the stick on a second and opposite side of the heel extending out of the pocket on a second and opposite side of said pocket”, “releasably secure said stick wrap to the heel, whereupon said stick wrap is resistant to accidental displacement from the heel” are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus. 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 “said stick wrap being formed of a blank of flexible material” is directed to a product formed by a process (a product-by-process claim). 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 of Davis teaches the final product of a flexible material and therefore meets the claim.
Davis does not teach said third section being connected to said second section by a foldable line and configured to be folded along said foldable line into releasable secureable engagement with said first section.
Champion (Figure 13) teaches said third section (90-3) being connected to said second section (90-2) by a foldable line (Fig. 13A, Part No. 96-2) (Para. 0112) and configured to be folded along said foldable line (96-2) into releasable secureable engagement with said first section (90-1) (Para. 0112).
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 said third section being connected to said second section by a foldable line as taught by Champion as a means of providing an exercise device wrap with fold lines to secure portions of the exercise device wrap (Champion: Para. 0112).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said pocket is lined with a slip-resistant liner (Fig. 2, Part No. 38) (Col. 3, Lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said base connector (12) is in a form of a loop.
It is noted that the prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “configured to encircle the base” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Davis.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said base connector (12) comprises an elongated base strap having a distal end portion (See fig. 2), a proximal end portion (See fig. 2), a distal connector (13), and a proximal connector (25), said distal end portion of said elongated base strap being connected to said proximal end of said resilient member (Fig. 2, Part No. 23), said distal connector (13) being secured to said elongated base strap adjacent said distal end portion of said elongated base strap (See fig. 2), said proximal connector (25) being connected to said proximal end portion of said elongated base strap, said distal connector and said proximal connector being releasably securable to each other to form said loop (Col. 3, Lines 4-12 and Lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches the distal end portion of the elongated base strap (12) includes a stop (39) (Col. 3, Lines 59-61).
It is noted that he prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “configured to engage a door jamb to releasably secure said base strap to said door jamb” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Davis.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said releasably securable engagement of said third section to said first section achieved by a first releasably securable connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 36) (Col. 3, Lines 20-24 and Lines 49-51) located on said outer surface of said first section and by a second releasably securable connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 21) (Col. 3, Lines 20-24 and Lines 49-51) located on said inner surface of said third section.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said stick wrap (17) having an outer surface, an inner surface, a first section, a second section, and a third section (See fig. 2), said first section comprises an upper section, said second section comprises an intermediate section, said third section comprises a lower section (See fig. 2) (Col. 3, Lines 49-54).
The modified Davis does not teach said foldable line comprises a lower fold line, said upper section being foldably connected to said intermediate section along an upper fold line, said upper section and said intermediate section having a first side edge and a second side edge, said first side edge being located opposite said second side edge, said first side edge forming a first wrapping portion, said second side edge forming a second wrapping portion, said wrap being foldable along said lower and upper foldable lines.
It is noted that the combination of prior art of Davis and Champion is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “whereupon said first wrapping portion is wrapped about the first portion of the stick on said first side of the heel and said second wrapping portion is wrapped about the second portion of the stick on the second side of the heel, with portions of the inner surface of said stick wrap engaging a portion of the heel” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art combination of Davis and Champion.
Champion (Figure 13) teaches said foldable line comprises a lower fold line (Fig. 13A, Part No. 96-2), said upper section being foldably connected to said intermediate section along an upper fold line (96-1), said upper section and said intermediate section having a first side edge and a second side edge (See fig. 13), said first side edge being located opposite said second side edge (See fig. 13), said first side edge forming a first wrapping portion, said second side edge forming a second wrapping portion, said wrap being foldable along said lower and upper foldable lines (See fig. 13) (Para. 00112).
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 said wrap being foldable along said lower and upper foldable lines as taught by Champion as a means of providing an exercise device wrap with fold lines to secure portions of the exercise device wrap (Champion: Para. 0112).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said upper section is of a shape having congruent sides (See fig. 2), and wherein said intermediate section is of the same shape and size as said upper section (See fig. 2).
The modified Davis does not teach said upper section is of a generally trapezoidal shape having congruent sides, and wherein said intermediate section is of the same shape and size as said upper section.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “said upper section is of a generally trapezoidal shape having congruent sides, and wherein said intermediate section is of the same shape and size as said upper section” is directed to the shape of the claimed “stick wrap”. 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 said upper section is of a generally trapezoidal shape as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Regarding claim 14, Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said stick wrap (17) having an outer surface, an inner surface, an upper section, an intermediate section, and a lower section (See fig. 2-4), said upper section and said intermediate section having a first side edge and a second side edge (See fig. 2), said first side edge being located opposite said second side edge (See fig. 2).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “said stick wrap being formed of a blank of flexible material” is directed to a product formed by a process (a product-by-process claim). 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 of Davis teaches the final product of a flexible material and therefore meets the claim.
It is noted that he prior art of Davis is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “whereupon said first wrapping portion is wrapped about the first portion of the stick on the first side of the heel and said second wrapping portion is wrapped about the second portion of the stick on the second side of the heel, with portions of the inner surface of said wrap engaging a portion of the heel” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Davis.
Davis does not teach said lower section being foldably connected to said intermediate section along a lower fold line, said upper section being foldably connected to said intermediate section along an upper fold line, said first side edge forming said first wrapping portion, said second side edge forming said second wrapping portion, said wrap being foldable along said lower and upper foldable lines.
Champion (Figure 13) teaches said lower section being foldably connected to said intermediate section along a lower fold line (Fig. 13A, Part No. 96-2), said upper section being foldably connected to said intermediate section along an upper fold line (96-1), said first side edge forming said first wrapping portion, said second side edge forming said second wrapping portion, said wrap being foldable along said lower and upper foldable lines (See fig. 13) (Para. 00112).
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 said lower section being foldably connected to said intermediate section along a lower fold line as taught by Champion as a means of providing an exercise device wrap with fold lines to secure portions of the exercise device wrap (Champion: Para. 0112).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said releasably securable connectors comprise a first releasably securable connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 21) (Col. 3, Lines 20-24 and Lines 49-51) located on said interior surface of said upper section, and a second releasably securable connector (Fig. 2, Part No. 36) (Col. 3, Lines 20-24 and Lines 49-51) located on said exterior surface of said lower section (See fig. 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Champion, further in view of Nurge (5362295).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Davis (Figures 1-4) teaches said training device comprising: a base connector (Fig. 3, Part 52) (Col. 3, Lines 6-14).
The modified Davis does not teach said training device comprises one training device of a kit of plural training devices, wherein each of said training devices is of similar construction, but whose elongated strap provides a different amount of stretchability than the elongated strap of others of the plural training devices of the kit.
Nurge teaches said training device comprises one training device of a kit of plural training devices (Col. 5, Lines 43-47), wherein each of said training devices is of similar construction, but whose elongated strap provides a different amount of stretchability than the elongated strap of others of the plural training devices of the kit (Col. 5, Lines 43-47).
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 elongated strap provides a different amount of stretchability than the elongated strap of others of the plural training devices of the kit as taught by Nurge as a means of providing a training device with elastic cords of different diameters to vary resistance while using the training device (Nurge: Col. 5, Lines 43-47).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caluori in view of Woodruff (6036625).
Regarding claim 19, Caluori (Figures 1-3) teaches utilizing said base connector (134) to secure said training device to a stationary base (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 124).
Caluori does not teach the stationary base comprises a door jamb, and said base connector includes a stop, and wherein said method comprises locating said stop with respect to the door jamb to engage the door jamb to releasably secure said base strap to said door jamb.
Woodruff (Figures 1-8) teaches the stationary base comprises a door jamb (Fig. 6, Part No. 75) (Col. 3, Lines 3-12), and said base connector includes a stop (17), and wherein said method comprises locating said stop with respect to the door jamb to engage the door jamb to releasably secure said base strap to said door jamb. (See fig. 6) (Col. 3, Lines 3-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Caluori with locating said stop with respect to the door jamb to engage the door jamb to releasably secure said base strap to said door jamb as taught by Woodruff as a means of anchoring an exercise strap to a door jamb using a stop (Woodruff: Col. 3, Lines 3-12).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caluori in view of Nurge (5362295).
Regarding claim 20, Caluori (Figures 1-3) teaches the sport is hockey and wherein the stick is a hockey stick having a blade connected to the shaft by the heel (See fig. 3).
Caluori does not teach said training device is provided as a portion of a kit of plural training devices, each of said training devices of said kit providing a different amount of resistance to the movement of the stick.
Nurge teaches said training device is provided as a portion of a kit of plural training devices (Col. 5, Lines 43-47), each of said training devices of said kit providing a different amount of resistance to the movement of the stick (Col. 5, Lines 43-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Caluori with each of said training devices of said kit providing a different amount of resistance to the movement of the stick as taught by Nurge as a means of providing a training device with elastic cords of different diameters to vary resistance while using the training device (Nurge: Col. 5, Lines 43-47).
Conclusion
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
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711