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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the applicant fails to clearly display the “extending direction” (C), “thickness direction”, and “orthogonal direction” (B) with respect to one another in a view displaying the entire racket (Fig.1). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(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 1-7,9,10 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ashino (US 20050003912 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ashino teaches a racket frame (10) comprising: a face portion (12) having an annular shape in planar view (Fig. 1), a grip portion (15), and a shaft portion (14) connecting the face portion and the grip portion, wherein at least a part of the face portion, the grip portion, and the shaft portion includes a tubular member (paragraph 71), and in a section orthogonal to an extending direction of the tubular member, the tubular member includes an inner tubular part (30-1) (Figs. 2 and 4), an outer tubular part (30-2) surrounding the inner tubular part, and a release layer (20) sandwiched between the inner tubular part and the outer tubular part (paragraph 65, first sentence). The “extending direction” is being interpreted by the examiner along the y-axis (up and down) with respect to a planar view of the racket shown in Fig. 1. The thickness direction is being interpreted as the thickness of the racket frame in any direction considering a planar view. The orthogonal direction is being interpreted by the examiner as that either going inward (into the page) or along the x-axis (left and right) with respect to the planar view shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ashino teaches wherein only a part of the face portion (12) includes the release layer (element 20-“modified fiber reinforced resinous layer”) in an extending direction of the face portion (claim 9).
Regarding claim 3, Ashino teaches wherein when a position of a first part of the face portion farthest from the grip portion in planar view is a 12o'clock position, the first part of the face portion and a second part at a 3o'clock position include the release layer (element 20-“modified fiber reinforced resinous layer”), and a third part of the face portion at a 2o'clock position does not include the release layer (claim 9; paragraphs 74-76). In particular, the embodiment in paragraph 74 discloses the release layer 20 to be at certain positions wherein 2 o’clock is not a position so that 2 o’clock does not include the release layer for the embodiment set forth in paragraph 74.
Regarding claim 4, Ashino teaches wherein the entire face portion in the extending direction includes the release layer (Fig. 4, paragraph 53; paragraph 65, last sentence).
Regarding claim 5, Ashino teaches wherein the release layer is partially disposed in a circumferential direction of the tubular member in a section orthogonal to an extending direction of the face portion (Fig. 3; paragraph 74; claim 9).
Regarding claim 6, Ashino teaches wherein the release layer (20) is disposed over an entire circumference in a circumferential direction of the tubular member in a section orthogonal to an extending direction of the face portion (paragraph 65, last sentence; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Ashino teaches wherein the release layer (20) exists between a first position at a distance of 20% of a thickness of the tubular member inside (30-1) (Fig. 2B) from an intermediate position of the tubular member and a second position at a distance of the 20% outside (30-2) from the intermediate position in a thickness direction of the tubular member (Fig. 2B; paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 9, Ashino teaches wherein the release layer (20) includes an inner layer (near element-30 on the hollow side in Fig. 4) and an outer layer (near element 30 on the external side opposite the hollow side) laminated in a thickness direction of the tubular member (claim 1), and the inner layer and the outer layer do not adhere to each other (paragraph 86, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Ashino teaches wherein each of the inner tubular part and the outer tubular part includes a resin layer (paragraph 86; Fig. 4), and the release layer (20) faces each of the resin layers of the inner tubular part and the resin layer of the outer tubular part.
Regarding claim 13, Ashino teaches wherein at least one of the inner tubular part and the outer tubular part includes a metal layer, and the release layer faces the metal layer (paragraph 35, sentence 3 and the last sentence; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Ashino teaches the racket frame according to claim 1; and a string tensioned on the face portion (paragraph 100, first sentence; Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claims 15-20, see the rejection for claim 10 above.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashino.
Regarding claim 11, Ashino teaches wherein at least one of the inner tubular part (30) and the outer tubular part (30) is a fiber-reinforced resin layer (paragraph 86), and the fiber-reinforced resin layer included in the first part, and second part includes fibers connected to each other (paragraph 76, Fig. 4). Ashino does not clearly show that the third part (part that does not include release layer) includes fibers connected to each other. However, Ashino teaches that the inner and outer tubular parts (30) contain fibers (Figs. 2 and 4), thus making it obvious to have the fibers connect to one another if they are adjacent to each other and facing each other, which does not present novelty. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the fibers in the resin layers connected with each other as implicitly taught by Ashino to obtain a stable frame structure.
Regarding claim 12, Ashino does not clearly disclose wherein a melting point of a material configuring the release layer is higher than a molding temperature of the resin layer. However, Ashino teaches using epoxy resin (paragraph 23) as the release layer (modified fiber reinforced resinous layer-20), and that the resinous component of the resin layer is preferred to be the same as that of the release layer (modified resinous layer-20) (paragraph 28, first sentence), and a molding temperature of the resin layer between 80-100 C (paragraph 44). Although Ashino does not clearly disclose the melting point of epoxy resin, it typically ranges between 120-180 C depending on the type of epoxy resin that is used. Therefore, Ashino implicitly teaches that the melting point of the release layer is higher than the molding temperature of the resin layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to claim wherein a melting point of a material configuring the release layer is higher than a molding temperature of the resin layer to prevent melting of the release layer during the molding process.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashino in view of Mauser (US 7077767 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Ashino does not clearly disclose wherein a through-hole penetrating the release layer is made in the release layer in a thickness direction of the tubular member. However, Ashino does teach “string-stretching holes” (paragraph 62, last sentence; not shown in the figures) around the head area. Furthermore, Mauser teaches through holes in a hollow tube-like frame (column 1, lines 18-21 discuss holes; column 3, lines 45-52 discuss tube structure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Ashino and Mauser by applying the through holes of Mauser to the frame of Ashino to attach the string of the racket.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711