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 .
Applicant’s response to the office action of 5/15/2025 is acknowledged on 9/15/2025.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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.
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.
(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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Dandrea (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0066220).
Regarding claim 1, Dandrea discloses a sports swing training device (see component 12 as shown in Figures 1-6f) configured to be attached to a shaft of a sports implement (C), the sports swing training device comprising: a grip portion having a first end and a second end (16), the second end of the grip portion being oppositely disposed relative to the first end of the grip portion (as shown in Figure 2, the grip end being attached to cover 18 is considered as a first end of the grip), the grip portion configured to accommodate a first hand of a user during a swinging of the sports implement, the grip portion configured to be spaced apart from a gripping area on the shaft of the sports implement when the sports swing training device is attached to the sports implement so as to define an open area between the shaft of the sports implement and the grip portion to accommodate a second hand of a user gripping the shaft of the sports implement (see Figures 1-2); a first attachment leg connected to the first end of the grip portion (clamp assembly 14), the first attachment leg configured to attach to a first location on the shaft of the sports implement (see clamp assembly as shown in Figures 1-3); the first location being proximate to an end of the shaft of the sports implement (see Figures 1-3); and a second attachment leg connected to the second end of the grip portion (12c), the second attachment leg configured to attach to a second location on the shaft of the sports implement (see Figures 1-3), the second location on the shaft of the sports implement being spaced apart from the first location on the shaft of the sports implement (see Figures 1-3); wherein, when the sports swing training device is attached to the sports implement, the shaft of the sports implement is exposed between the first attachment leg and the second attachment leg so as to allow the second hand of the user to grip the shaft of the sports implement between the first attachment leg and the second attachment leg without interference from the sports wing training device (see Figures 1-3, 6a-6f); wherein, when the sports swing training device is used with the sports implement during the swinging of the sports implement, the sports swing training device is configured to assist the user in learning a proper swinging motion of the sports implement (see paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the sports implement is selected from the group consisting of: (i) a golf club, (ii) a hockey stick, and (iii) a lacrosse stick (Dandrea teaches the use of a golf club).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the grip portion of the sports swing training device is configured to be disposed generally parallel to the shaft of the sports implement when the sports swing training device is attached to the sports implement (as shown in figure 2, the high point center point/section of component 12 is considered as being “generally” parallel. In addition, the reference in paragraph 55 discloses that alternate shapes and sizes could be used).
Regarding claim 4, wherein at least one of the first attachment leg and the second attachment leg are configured to extend generally perpendicular to the grip portion of the sports swing training device (as shown in figure 2, the top and bottom sections of component 12 closest to the golf shaft are considered as being “generally perpendicular”. In addition, the reference in paragraph 55 discloses that alternate shapes and sizes could be used).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the first attachment leg comprises a first shaft concave recess formed therein for accommodating a curvature of the shaft of the sports implement (clamp assembly as shown in Figures 1-3, has a central concave recess that accommodates the end section of the golf club grip).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the second attachment leg comprises a second shaft concave recess formed therein for accommodating the curvature of the shaft of the sports implement (see 12c as shown in Figures 1-3), the first shaft concave recess in the first attachment leg being larger than the second shaft concave recess in the second attachment leg so as to accommodate a larger shaft cross-sectional area of the shaft at the first location on the shaft of the sports implement (as shown in Figure 3, the first shaft concave recess (section of 14) is shown as being larger than second attachment leg (12c)).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the grip portion of the sports swing training device (11) comprises a central rod member (the golf club shaft C is considered as a central rod member) and a tubular grip member disposed over the central rod member (see Figures 1-6), the tubular grip member being formed from a grip material that emulates a material forming the gripping area on the shaft of the sports implement (this is an inherent feature a common golf club structure. As shown in Figure 5, the grip section is inherently formed of a grip material).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandrea in view of Kurisu (US Patent Publication No. 20100184525).
Dandrea disclose the sports swing training device according to claim 6. Dandrea fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first shaft concave recess and the second shaft concave recess comprises a plurality of vertically extending ribs that facilitate a more securement engagement with the shaft of the sports implement. Kurisu discloses wherein at least one of the first shaft concave recess and the second shaft concave recess comprises a plurality of vertically extending ribs that facilitate a more securement engagement with the shaft of the sports implement (the cylindrical shaped member 12 has ribs 20 which extend along its entire length, including along the two recesses formed by the pair of lips 22 and 24 and the pair of lips 26 and 28, which prevents twisting and turning when pushed into contact with the golf club, capable of providing more secure attachment to a shaft of a golf club; figures 1A-2B; paragraphs 80-81). Subject to the obvious combination of Green and Doc, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Dandrea device such that at least one of the first shaft concave recess and the second shaft concave recess comprises a plurality of vertically extending ribs that facilitate a more securement engagement with the shaft of the sports implement as taught by Kurisu because, as Kurisu discloses, the rips prevent the device from twisting and turning when pushed onto the golf club (Kurisu; paragraphs 80-81).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandrea in view of Dantas (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0111599).
Dandrea discloses the invention as recited in claim 1 above but does not disclose the use of first and second strap members that are configured to attach the first and second legs on the sport implement as recited. Dantas is one example of reference that teaches the use of a strap member to attach a training/teaching device to a sport implement (see strap element 110 as shown in Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute attachment means of Dandrea with the attachment means of Dantas to use a known alternative adjustment means. Dandrea also teaches that the strap element could have aperture for receiving the portion of the strap member (in paragraph 32 of the Dandrea discloses the fastening strap 110 is held to a key-hole shaped slot 124 in the body 106. See figures 4-7). Regarding the strap being two, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use two strap members to attach the two legs of the Dandrea device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of McGhee (US Patent Publication No. 2020/0114194).
Dandrea in view of Dantas disclose the sports swing training device according to claim 9. The references as applied to claim 9 fail to disclose wherein at least one of the first attachment leg and the second attachment leg comprises a resilient spring member for applying tension on the first strap member or the second strap member so as to retain the first strap member or the second strap member in secure engagement with the shaft of the sports implement. McGhee discloses wherein at least one of the first attachment leg and the second attachment leg comprises a resilient spring member for applying tension on the first strap member or the second strap member so as to retain the first strap member or the second strap member in secure engagement with the shaft of the sports implement (a spring may be attached to the spring coils 108 and 118 in assemblies 107 and 117 (second attachment arm) to maintain tension on the straps 105 and 115 which are wrapped around a vertical structure 400, and so are capable of being secured around a shaft of a sports implement; figures 1-7; see paragraphs 107, 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination of the references as used in claim 9 above, to have such a device that discloses at least one of the first attachment leg and the second attachment leg comprising a resilient spring member for applying tension on the first strap member or the second strap member so as to retain the first strap member or the second strap member in secure engagement with the shaft of the sports implement as taught by McGhee because, as McGhee discloses, the springs maintain tension on the straps as they are pulled out, allowing the straps to be tightened on the structure (McGhee; paragraphs [0107], [01101). Furthermore, integrating a spring to tension the straps would have been generally obvious in order to provide a more secure engagement on the shaft.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandrea in view of Wallin et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0271467).
Dandrea discloses the sports swing training device according to claim 1. Dandrea fails to disclose wherein the grip portion of the sports swing training device is in a form of a molded rod with a textured outer grip surface for accommodating the first hand of the user during the swinging of the sports implement. Wallin discloses wherein the grip portion of the sports swing training device is in a form of a molded rod with a textured outer grip surface for accommodating the first hand of the user during the swinging of the sports implement (golf grip formed by molding texturized pattern on the outer surface of the golf grip, the grip being in the shape of a hollow cylindrical rod, capable of being held by a firsthand of a user; figures 1-2C paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Green's device such that the grip portion of the sports swing training device is in a form of a molded rod with a textured outer grip surface for accommodating the first hand of the user during the swinging of the sports implement as taught by Wallin because, as Wallin discloses, the grip can be formed of one-piece by molding the texturized pattern into the outer surface to improve gripping and grip alignment (Wallin; paragraphs 1, 45). Although Wallin discloses molding the grip of the golf club, this would be easily implemented into Dandrea's grip portion of the swing training device, especially because Green explicitly states that the grip portion of the device should closely simulate to the grip of the golf club shaft (Green; column 2, lines 25-35).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandrea in view of Johnson (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0088612).
Dandrea discloses the sports swing training device according to claim 1. Dandrea fails to disclose further comprising a first cable tie member configured to attach the first attachment leg to the first location on the shaft of the sports implement, and a second cable tie member configured to attach the second attachment leg to the second location on the shaft of the sports implement. Johnson discloses a first cable tie member configured to attach the first attachment leg to the first location on the shaft of the sports implement, and a second cable tie member configured to attach the second attachment leg to the second location on the shaft of the sports implement (straps 506 in the form of cable ties are threaded through opposite ends (attachment legs) of the housing 502 for attaching the training aid 500 to the shaft 510 at spaced apart locations on the shaft 510 as shown; figures 9, 11-12; paragraphs 94, 96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Dandrea's device such that a first cable tie member configured to attach the first attachment leg to the first location on the shaft of the sports implement, and a second cable tie member configured to attach the second attachment leg to the second location on the shaft of the sports implement as taught by Johnson because, as Johnson discloses, straps in the form of cable ties can be used for securing fixing the training aid to the shaft (Johnson; paragraph 96). Cable ties are very readily available and could be used for providing a very secure attachment such that the user could easily remove and replace the cable ties when they wish to put the device on a different club for training purposes.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Khokhar (US Patent No. 6,185,791).
Dandrea in view of Johnson disclose the sports swing training device according to claim 13. Dandrea fails to disclose wherein at least one of the first cable tie member and the second cable tie member comprises a release mechanism for allowing the at least one of the first cable tie member and the second cable tie member to be removed from the shaft of the sports implement. Khokhar discloses wherein the cable lie member comprises a release mechanism for allowing the cable tie member to be removed from the shaft of the sports implement (the cable tie 10 includes a deflectable latch 22 that allows release of the cable tie 10, and so the cable 10 is capable of being released from around a shaft of a golf club; abstract; figures 1-2, 9-10; column 3, lines 40-65; column 4, lines 50-65). Subject to the obvious combination of Green and Johnson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Green and Johnson's cable tie members to comprise a release mechanism for allowing the at least one of the first cable tie member and the second cable tie member to be removed from the shaft of the sports implement as taught by Khokhar because, as Khokhar discloses, the releasable locking head allows the cable tie to be removed and reused (Khokhar; column 1, lines 5-10).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dandrea in view of Hoeckl (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0191978).
Dandrea discloses the sports swing training device according to claim 1. Dandrea fails to disclose further comprising a first elastic cord member configured to attach the first attachment leg to the first location on the shaft of the sports implement, and a second elastic cord member configured to attach the second attachment leg to the second location on the shaft of the sports implement. Hoeckl discloses an elastic cord member configured to attach the attachment leg to the first location on the shaft of the sports implement (end 38 of strap 22 may be formed from a stretchable material such as an elastic fabric for securing the apparatus 10 to the shaft 14 of the golf club; figures 1-2; paragraph 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Dandrea's device to include a first elastic cord member configured to attach the first attachment leg to the first location on the shaft of the sports implement, and a second elastic cord member configured to attach the second attachment leg to the second location on the shaft of the sports implement because Hoeckl discloses an elastic cord member to attach an attachment leg to a first location on the shaft, and that using the stretchable elastic material would provide the strap with an even greater ability to adjust and accommodate the apparatus on the shaft (Hoeckl; paragraph 26). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to implement this elastic cord member for both of Dandrea's attachment legs because Green attaches the device at two attachment legs to different locations on the shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711