DETAILED ACTION
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 4-20 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 term “resembling” in claims 4 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resembling” 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 metes and bounds of “resembling” are unclear and subject to one’s opinion.
The term “enhance” in claims 4 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resembling” 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 metes and bounds of “enhance” are unclear and subject to one’s opinion.
The term “enhanced” in claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 18, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resembling” 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 metes and bounds of “enhanced” are unclear and subject to one’s opinion.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haddad (US 4,076,240).
With respect to claim 1, Haddad teaches a playing stick (10) for an outdoor or indoor game, the playing stick comprising: an elongate handle (11) having a distal end and an opposing proximal end; a blade (12) connected to the distal end of the handle, the blade having opposing first (15) and second (15) surfaces, wherein each of the first and second surfaces are defined by a concave curvature (figure 4) enabling the sticks to be used bidirectionally (figures 1-6; and column 2, line 38-40).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frantti (US 3,856,298).
With respect to claim 6, Frantti teaches a scoring net (17) comprising: a frame portion (23/24) supporting at least one of a fabric or netting (20) and defining a scoring area (figure 4); and one or more slots (19) formed in the frame portion to define defining additional and enhanced scoring areas (figure 4; and column 1, line 66-column 5, line 49).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meng (WO 2012022117A1).
With respect to claim 6, Meng teaches a scoring net comprising: a frame portion supporting at least one of a fabric or netting and defining a scoring area (figures 1-13 and 22-24); and one or more slots formed in the frame portion to define defining additional and enhanced scoring areas (figures 1-13 and 22-24; and the machine translation). Note that the small goal mouth positioned inside the large goal mouth forms one or more slots.
With respect to claim 7, Meng teaches in which the frame portion comprises an outer frame portion (large goal mouth) and an inner frame portion (small goal mouth) disposed within the outer frame portion, wherein the inner frame portion is smaller than the outer frame portion in which the inner frame portion defines the scoring area and an area surrounding the inner frame portion within the outer frame portion defines the one or more slots defining the enhanced scoring area (figures 1-13 and 22-24; and the machine translation). Note that the small goal mouth positioned inside the large goal mouth forms one or more slots.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad (US 4,076,240) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bengtsson (WO 97/28854).
With respect to claim 2, Haddad does not teach the blade is defined by a symmetrical lattice structure including a plurality of spokes disposed in a radial pattern about a circular base port.
However, Bengtsson teaches a playing stick wherein the blade (1) is defined by a symmetrical lattice structure including a plurality of spokes disposed in a radial pattern about a circular base port (figures 3A and 3B; and page 4, lines 23-24).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the blade configuration of Bengtsson on the playing stick of Haddad in order to form a playing stick with the desired weight distribution, aerodynamics, and/or structural rigidity.
With respect to claim 3, Bengtsson teaches wherein the symmetrical lattice structure is further defined by a series of interconnecting web portions connecting adjacent spokes at predetermined radial distances about the base port (Figure 3A).
With respect to claim 4, Bengtsson teaches wherein the symmetrical lattice structure has a configuration resembling that of a spider web (broadest reasonable interpretation) (Figure 3A).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad (US 4,076,240) and Bengtsson (WO 97/28854) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Turtiainen (SE-529963C2).
With respect to claim 5, Haddad and Bengtsson do not teach wherein at least some of the spokes of the symmetrical lattice structure include a linear series of serrations formed thereon in order to enhance shot making.
However, Turtiainen teaches wherein at least some of the spokes of the symmetrical lattice structure include a linear series of serrations (knobs 15) formed thereon in order to enhance shot making (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the knobs/serrations of Turtiainen on the collective playing stick of Haddad and Bengtsson in order to achieve the desired effect on the ball.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantti (US 3,856,298) in view of Haddad (US 4,076,240).
With respect to claim 11, Frantti teaches a scoring net (17) comprising: a frame portion (23/24) supporting at least one of a fabric or netting (20) and defining a scoring area (figure 4); and one or more slots (19) formed in the frame portion to define defining additional and enhanced scoring areas (figure 4; and column 1, line 66-column 5, line 49).
While, Haddad teaches a plurality (column 3, lines 37-39) of playing sticks (10), the plurality of playing sticks each comprising: an elongate handle (11) having a distal end and an opposing proximate end; and a blade (12) connected to the distal end of the handle, the blade having opposing first (15) and second surfaces (15), wherein each of the first and second surfaces are defined by a curved concave configuration (figure 4), enabling bidirectional (left and right handed) use of the stick (figures 1-6; and column 2, line 38-40).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the playing stick of Haddad with the scoring net of Frantti in order to play a scoring game with a stick which maximizes strength and rigidity and minimizes weight and wind resistance for both right and left-handed persons. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the scoring net of Frantti with the playing stick of Haddad in order to create different shots for training purposes.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (WO 2012022117A1) in view of Haddad (US 4,076,240).
With respect to claim 11, Meng teaches a scoring net comprising: a frame portion supporting at least one of a fabric or netting and defining a scoring area (figures 1-13 and 22-24); and one or more slots formed in the frame portion to define defining additional and enhanced scoring areas (figures 1-13 and 22-24; and the machine translation). Note that the small goal mouth positioned inside the large goal mouth forms one or more slots.
While, Haddad teaches a plurality (column 3, lines 37-39) of playing sticks (10), the plurality of playing sticks each comprising: an elongate handle (11) having a distal end and an opposing proximate end; and a blade (12) connected to the distal end of the handle, the blade having opposing first (15) and second surfaces (15), wherein each of the first and second surfaces are defined by a curved concave configuration (figure 4), enabling bidirectional (left and right handed) use of the stick (figures 1-6; and column 2, line 38-40).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the playing stick of Haddad with the scoring net of Meng in order to play a scoring game with a stick which maximizes strength and rigidity and minimizes weight and wind resistance for both right and left-handed persons. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the scoring net of Meng with the playing stick of Haddad in order to create a first and second tier of scoring.
With respect to claim 20, Meng teaches in which the frame portion of the scoring net comprises an outer frame portion including a horizontally disposed cross bar and vertically extending posts at opposing ends of the cross bar and an inner frame portion disposed within the outer frame portion, the inner frame portion including a horizontal cross bar and vertically extending posts at the ends of the horizontal cross bar, wherein the inner frame portion is vertically and horizontally smaller than the outer frame portion in order to define the slot defining the enhanced scoring area (figures 1-13 and 22-24; and the machine translation). Note that the small goal mouth positioned inside the large goal mouth forms one or more slots.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantti (US 3,856,298) and Haddad (US 4,076,240) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bengtsson (WO 97/28854).
With respect to claim 12, Haddad does not teach the blade is defined by a symmetrical lattice structure including a plurality of spokes disposed in a radial pattern about a base port.
However, Bengtsson teaches a playing stick wherein the blade (1) is defined by a symmetrical lattice structure including a plurality of spokes disposed in a radial pattern about a base port (figures 3A and 3B; and page 4, lines 23-24).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the blade configuration of Bengtsson on the playing stick of Haddad in order to form a playing stick with the desired weight distribution, aerodynamics, and/or structural rigidity.
With respect to claim 13, Bengtsson teaches wherein the symmetrical lattice structure is further defined by a series of interconnecting web portions connecting adjacent spokes at predetermined radial distances about the base port (Figure 3A).
With respect to claim 14, Bengtsson teaches wherein the symmetrical lattice structure has a configuration resembling that of a spider web (broadest reasonable interpretation) (Figure 3A).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frantti (US 3,856,298), Haddad (US 4,076,240), and Bengtsson (WO 97/28854) as applied to claims 11-14 above, and further in view of Turtiainen (SE-529963C2).
With respect to claim 15, Frantti, Haddad and Bengtsson do not teach wherein at least portions of the spokes of the symmetrical lattice structure further include a series of linear serrations formed thereon.
However, Turtiainen teaches wherein at least portions of the spokes of the symmetrical lattice structure further include a series of linear serrations (knobs 15) formed thereon (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the knobs/serrations of Turtiainen on the collective playing stick of Haddad and Bengtsson in order to achieve the desired effect on the ball.
With respect to claim 16, Turtiainen teaches in which the series of linear serrations (knobs 15) are formed in the spokes disposed in the distal end of the blade (figures; and machine translation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
Note the references US 5,632,481, CH-297497, and CH-694284A5, which are cited on the attached form-892, also teach double-concave playing sticks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735