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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the curved opening at a transition to the frame from claim 6 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to because a figure part is mislabeled. In Fig. 3, Sectional View: B-B, the lower “2a” arrow pointing upwards should be “2b”, indicating the 2b string-fitting plane for proper orientation.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 6 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 “slot-like” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slot-like” 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. For purposes of examination, for this claim, “slot-like” is being interpreted as a channel into which something fits.
Claim 6 is indefinite, due to the lack of any further description in the specification or figures. “Curved in a convex manner” is relative depending on orientation, and “transition to the frame” is vague and ill-defined. Clarification is required.
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.
(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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE 202005009721 U1 (hereinafter “Inside Sport”).
Regarding claim 1, Inside Sport discloses stringing arrangement for a ball sports racket (Fig. 1, 1) that has a string array (Fig. 1, 5); a frame (Fig. 1, 3) that substantially surrounds the string array; and string guides (Fig. 1, 4) formed on the frame, the string guides supporting and guiding strings of a racket string-fitting (Para. 0006), wherein the string guides are formed asymmetrically such that a free length of the string respectively guided on the string guide is substantially perpendicular to a striking direction and to a string-fitting plane of the racket and is greater on a first side of the string-fitting plane than on a second side of the string-fitting plane so that a tension and/or elasticity criterion of the stringing arrangement is different for each of the first and second sides of the string-fitting plane (Para. 0007).
Regarding claim 2, Inside Sport further discloses that the string guides (Fig. 1, 4) are designed in the form of openings as string channels which pass through the frame from an inside to an outside so that the channels have an asymmetrical widening at their opening facing the string array (Para. 0009).
Regarding claim 3, Inside Sport further discloses that the opening facing the string array is widened in the shape of a funnel parallel to the striking direction (Para. 0009, “truncated cone”).
Regarding claim 4, Inside Sport discloses all the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses the opening facing the string array is widened in a slot-like manner parallel to the striking direction (Fig. 2, 7, Para. 0009). “Slot-like” is being interpreted as stated supra regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inside Sport as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 5, Inside Sport discloses all the limitations of claim 2. However, Inside Sport does not specifically recite that the opening facing the string array is widened in steps parallel to the striking direction. Further specifying how the opening is widened (i.e. steps), as opposed to a “truncated cone” (Para. 0009) in Inside Sport’s disclosure accomplishes the same feat of receiving strings through an asymmetric widening of an opening. Thus, claiming widening in steps is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed opening is significant. See MPEP 2144 - In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inside Sport as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 9302159 B2 (hereinafter “Schwenger”).
Regarding claim 6, Inside Sport discloses all the limitations of claim 2. However, Inside Sport does not specifically recite that the opening facing the string array is curved in a convex manner such that it is curved at a transition to the frame and fits tightly to the played string. Schwenger, in the analogous art of racket sports, discloses an opening that faces the string array and is curved in a convex manner which receives racket strings (Fig. 4C). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate different opening designs to vary the force/tension profile of the racket strings (Schwenger, Col. 6, lines 36-38). Additionally, further specifying how the opening is widened (i.e. in curving fashion), as opposed to a “truncated cone” (Para. 0009) in Inside Sport’s disclosure accomplishes the same feat of receiving strings through an asymmetric widening of an opening. Thus, claiming widening in a curved manner is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed opening is significant. See MPEP 2144 - In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As a reminder to Applicant, this claim is subject to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection due to lack of clarity and is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inside Sport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10369422 B2 (hereinafter, “Yamanaka”).
Regarding claim 7, Inside Sport discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Inside Sport does not specifically disclose that the asymmetrical string guide is created by a frame profile which is thickened on one side of the string-fitting plane. However, Yamanaka, analogous in the art of racket sports, discloses a frame profile that is thicker on one side (Fig. 2, 21) of the string-fitting plane (Fig. 2, B1) (See also Col. 5, lines 25-29). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust frame thickness in order to enhance the asymmetric design of Inside Sport to produce a greater tension differential between the two sides. Additionally, one might be motivated to adjust the frame alone to prevent having to change from a conventional bore shape in order to create the different-tensioned sides.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inside Sport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060046876 A1 (hereinafter, “Tucker”).
Regarding claim 8, Inside Sport discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Inside Sport does not specifically disclose that the asymmetrical string guide is created by stiffening the strings on one side. In the analogous art of stringed sports equipment, Tucker discloses stiffening material that can be applied to different areas of strings on player equipment (Abstract). Thus, it would be obvious to apply the stiffening material of Tucker to an area on the racket to enable a firmer surface on one side/area for versatility and customizable use.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inside Sport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 6782154 B2 (hereinafter, “Kazuya”).
Regarding claim 9, Inside Sport discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Inside Sport does not disclose that the asymmetrical string guide is created by a plurality of sleeve-like inserts fitted into the frame, the inserts being designed in such a way that the strings can move more freely on one side of the string- fitting plane compared to the other side of the string-fitting plane. Kazuya, in the analogous art of racket sports, discloses sleeve-like inserts (Fig. 4, 51) that fit into the frame that allow the string to move different distances (i.e. more freely) on one side of the string-fitting plane than the other (Para. 0041, Fig. 2A). Thus, to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing it would be obvious to substitute the asymmetric bore holes of Inside Sport for the fitted-sleeve insert design for increased compatibility with conventional rackets, allowing players to use their own rackets rather than having to purchase a new racket or drill new bore holes.
Regarding claim 10, modified Inside Sport further discloses that the plurality of inserts are contiguous, connected in one piece (Fig. 4, 52), and abuts a frame side (Para. 0034). Motivation for modification is as stated supra.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inside Sport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 107998628 A (hereinafter, “Huilin”).
Regarding claim 11, Inside Sport discloses all limitations of claim 1. While Inside Sport discloses a handle (Fig. 1, 2), it is silent regarding if the handle has a haptically detectable attachment indicating an orientation of the string-fitting plane. Huilin, in the analogous art of racket sports, discloses a racket with a handle that has asymmetric features (Fig. 2, 5) that enable the user to “distinguish the front and back of the racket by feel” (Para. 0020). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the wooden grip (Fig. 2, 5) is attached to the conical cap (Fig. 2, 4) that makes up the handle, thus qualifying it as a haptically detectable attachment. Thus, to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing it would be obvious to for Inside Sport to include an asymmetric handle so that the player can feel and know which side of the racket they are playing with.
Regarding claim 12, Inside Sport discloses all limitations of claim 1. Inside Sport does not specifically disclose coloration of the racket, specifically that the frame indicates an orientation of the string-fitting plane by a different coloring of the two playing sides. Huilin discusses conventional methods in the art of racket sports, stating “Currently, the distinction between the front and back sides is based on the color of the racket” (Para. 0004). Thus, to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing it would be obvious to for Inside Sport to include different coloration so that the player can know which side of the racket they are playing with. Use of two different colored sides in rackets is widely known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0925. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/S.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711