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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glava (US 5,088,734).
Re claims 2, 4 and 7: Glava shows and teaches a grip strap/tape as shown in figures 1-4 comprising a non-woven layer 24 and an adhesive layer 28 adhered/attached on a bottom of the non-woven layer 24 wherein the opposing side of the adhesive layer 28 serves as a flexible covering layer; a gel 20 applied onto a top of the non-woven layer 24 and including a thickness as shown in figures 2-3 (see figures 1-4 and col. 5, line 15 through col. 6, line 46).
Re claims 8 and 9: Glava further shows in figures 2-3 wherein the gel (20 and 120) is multiple adhesion protrusions spacedly arranged onto the top of the non-woven layer (24 and 124), and a spaced distance between any two adjacent adhesion protrusions is D1 (distance apart) as clearly shown in figures 2 and 3 & column 6, lines 9 through line 20.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glava (US 5,088,734). The teachings of Glava have been discussed above.
Re claim 3, 6 and 10: Although, Glava discloses the adhesive layer 28 including the covering layer and the gel (see col. 6, lines 9-20 and col. 6, lines 39-48), Glava is silent with respect to wherein a ratio of the thickness of the gel and the thickness of the covering layer is 0.5:1 to 2:1.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed would have customized the specific ratio of the thickness of the gel and the covering layer to be 0.5:; to 2:1 or any other ratio factors to further accommodate/design to reduce the shock and/or vibration of the equipment as taught by Glava, for example, if the grip strap/tape is implemented on a tennis racket, an ordinary skill in the art would have designed/manufactured the strap/tape with the ratio of the thickness of the gel and covering layer to be less difference so that the operator can have better “feel” during the operation of the equipment but having some shock/vibration support during the game play BUT, if the grip strap/tape is implemented on a sledge hammer for instance, an ordinary skill in the art would have designed/manufactured the strap/tape with the ratio of the thickness of the gel and covering layer to be higher ratio difference so that the operator would have the “most” shock/vibration support during the operation. Therefore, such modification/integration of the gel and covering layer having different ratio of the thickness of the gel and covering layer would have been an obvious design variation well within the ordinary skill in the art to better customized equipment for different activities and/or operation.
Re claim 5: Glava is silent with respect to the ratio of a thickness of the covering layer and a thickness of the flexible layer is 1:1 to 2:1.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made and/or filed would have customized the specific ratio of the thickness of the covering layer and the flexible layer to 1:1 to 2:1 or any other ratio factors to further enhance the feel and the durability of the strap/tape for different usage in his/her operation of the equipment. That is, if the equipment is a tennis racket, on ordinary skill in the art would implement/design 1:1 ratio so that the operator can have a better “feel” during the play of the game BUT on the other hand, if the operator is using the sledge hammer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have design/applied different ratio of the thickness of the covering layer in respect to the flexible layer for its durability. Thus, such modification/integration of the ratio of the thickness of the covering layer and the flexible would have been an obvious design variation well within the ordinary skill in the art to better customized equipment for different activities and/or operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chu et al (US 2013/0072320) and Lammer (WO 03/006113) discloses a grip/handle tape/strap for a sports equipment and the method of making the tape/strap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G LEE, SPE AU2876 whose telephone number is (571)272-2398. The examiner can normally be reached (M-F, 430am to 330pm).
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, Allana Bidder, Director TC2800 can be reached at (272)571-5560. 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.
/MICHAEL G LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876