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 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: any step of manufacturing or using. The claims merely recite “A method of manufacturing” or “A method of using”, but never recite any actual method steps.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent D399,901 to Beyer in view of US Patent 6,786,835 to Carter.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Beyer discloses a triangular grip with rounded edges (Figures), an opening on the bottom (inherent to receive the shaft shown in Figs. 5-7), but does not expressly disclose a pin hole on the top.
However, placing a pin hole on the top side of the grip is well-known and widely used in the art as taught by Carter (see Figures, and element 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to modify the top of Beyer with a pin hole as taught by Carter, in order to enable air within the bore of the grip to escape when the grip is installed on the end of a shaft (see col. 4, ll. 49-52 of Carter).
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15, Beyer, as modified by Carter, is silent in regards to the specific dimensions were conventional or well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, sufficient for the examiner to take official notice. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized that modifying the dimensions to include the claimed dimensions, would have advantageously given the grip the dimensions known as standard in the industry. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Beyer and Carter to include the claimed dimensions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas J Weiss whose telephone number is (571)270-1775. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
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.
Nicholas J. Weiss
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711