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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 10-11, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross (20140100064) in view of St. Vincent (20200269124) and Eastman (20170239541).
Regarding claim 1, Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a hockey stick comprising: a blade (20) (Para. 0018); a paddle (16) (Para. 0018) comprising a front face (24) (Para. 0026); and a shaft (10) (Para. 0018) comprising a first gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027) positioned on a front face of the paddle and extending from the shaft into the paddle (See fig. 7), a proximate end the first gripping structure is positioned on a portion of the shaft, wherein a distal end of the first gripping structure is positioned on a portion of the paddle front face (Fig. 7, Part No. 24).
Cross does not teach a proximate end the first gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the shaft, a distal end of the first gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the paddle front face, the first gripping structure is convex, wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section.
It is noted that the claim recitations of “a proximate end the first gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the shaft” and “a distal end of the first gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the paddle front face” is directed to the location/position of the gripping structure. It is noted that a user could grip at a center portion of the shaft and so putting the gripping member at this location would be merely a matter of rearrangement of parts to provide a gripping member at desired locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Cross with the first gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the shaft as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
St. Vincent (Figure 26) teaches a hockey goalie stick having a rectangular cross section (See fig. 1-2) (Para. 0043), where a grip structure (10) (Para. 0044) is located in the paddle portion of the hockey stick, wherein the paddle has a first thickness measured between the front face and a back face of the paddle (See fig . 1), and wherein the paddle has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, measured between a top of the first gripping structure (10) (Para. 0044) and the back face of the paddle (Para. 0038, 0052) (See fig. 1-5).
Eastman (Figures 1-17) teaches the first gripping structure (Fig. 12, Part No. 20) is convex (Para. 0037).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” is directed to the embodiment in figure 16A-16B of applicant’s drawings. It is noted that the combination of Cross , St. Vincent, and Eastman under 35 USC 103 teaches the claim recitation of “wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” as Eastman teaches placement of the convex gripping structure on a hockey stick (Eastman: Para. 0037). Placing the gripping structure of Eastman at a location between the handle and paddle of Cross is merely a matter of rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cross with a hockey goalie stick having a rectangular cross section as taught by St. Vincent as a means of providing a hockey goalie stick with a rectangular cross section to accommodate a grip of a user (St. Vincent: Para. 0043) (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), and to provide Cross with the first gripping structure is convex as taught by Eastman as a means of providing a hockey stick with a convex gripping device to align a user’s knuckles to achieve a proper grip (Eastman: Para. 0037), and also as a means of changing a shape of a gripping structure of a hockey stick to provide a convex shape to accommodate a grip of a user (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches the blade (20) is curved (Para. 0018).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches the paddle (16) is positioned between the shaft and the blade.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a majority of the first gripping structure (28, 32) is positioned on the shaft (See fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a second gripping structure (32) (Para. 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches the second gripping structure the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches is a finger or thumb support.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches the second gripping structure the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches is generally wavy- shaped, j-shaped, or s-shaped.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a blade (20) (Para. 0018); a paddle (16) (Para. 0018); and a shaft (10) (Para. 0018) comprising a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the blade, the shaft, and the gripping structure are integrally formed.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the blade, the shaft, and the gripping structure are integrally formed” is directed to a product made by a process (a product-by-process claim). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of Cross teaches the final product of a hockey stick comprising a blade, shaft, and gripping structure and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a blade (20) (Para. 0018); a paddle (16) (Para. 0018); and a shaft (10) (Para. 0018) comprising a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not the gripping structure is attached to the shaft and paddle with an adhesive.
Eastman (Figures 1-17) teaches the gripping structure (20) is attached to the sports stick with an adhesive (Para. 0034, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with a gripping structure attached to a sports stick with an adhesive as taught by Eastman as a means of using adhesive to attach a gripping structure to a shaft of a sports implement (Eastman: Para. 0034, 0037).
Regarding claim 11, Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a method of fabricating a hockey stick comprising: forming a shaft (10) (Para. 0018); forming a curved blade (20); forming a paddle (16); and forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28, 32) (Para. 0026-0027), wherein a proximate end the gripping structure is positioned on a portion of the shaft, wherein a distal end of the gripping structure is positioned on a portion of a front face (24) (Para. 0026) of the paddle (See fig. 7).
Cross does not teach a proximate end the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the shaft, a distal end of the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of a front face of the paddle, the gripping structure is convex, wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section.
It is noted that the claim recitations of “a proximate end the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the shaft” and “a distal end of the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of a front face of the paddle" are directed to the location/position of the gripping structure. It is noted that a user could grip at a center portion of the shaft and so putting the gripping member at this location would be merely a matter of rearrangement of parts to provide a gripping member at desired locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Cross with the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the shaft as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
St. Vincent (Figure 26) teaches a hockey goalie stick having a rectangular cross section (See fig. 1-2) (Para. 0043), where a grip structure (10) (Para. 0044) is located in the paddle portion of the hockey stick, wherein the paddle has a first thickness measured between the front face and a back face of the paddle (See fig. 1), and wherein the paddle has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, measured between a top of the first gripping structure (10) (Para. 0044) and the back face of the paddle (Para. 0038, 0052) (See fig. 1-5).
Eastman (Figures 1-17) teaches the gripping structure (Fig. 12, Part No. 20) is convex (Para. 0037).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” is directed to the embodiment in figure 16A-16B of applicant’s drawings. It is noted that the combination of Cross, St. Vincent , and Eastman under 35 USC 103 teaches the claim recitation of “wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” as Eastman teaches placement of the convex gripping structure on a hockey stick (Eastman: Para. 0037). Placing the gripping structure of Eastman at a location between the handle and paddle of Cross is merely a matter of rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cross with a hockey goalie stick having a rectangular cross section as taught by St. Vincent as a means of providing a hockey goalie stick with a rectangular cross section to accommodate a grip of a user (St. Vincent: Para. 0043) (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), and to provide Cross with the gripping structure is convex as taught by Eastman as a means of providing a hockey stick with a convex gripping device to align a user’s knuckles to achieve a proper grip (Eastman: Para. 0037), and also as a means of changing a shape of a gripping structure of a hockey stick to provide a convex shape to accommodate a grip of a user (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the gripping structure is secured to the shaft or paddle by adhesive.
Eastman (Figures 1-17) the gripping structure is secured to the shaft or paddle by adhesive (Para. 0034, 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with the gripping structure is secured to the shaft or paddle by adhesive as taught by Eastman as a means of using adhesive to attach a gripping structure to a shaft of a sports implement (Eastman: Para. 0034, 0037).
Regarding claim 20, Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a method comprising: forming a hockey stick, wherein the hockey stick further comprises: a shaft (10) (Para. 0018); a curved blade (20); a paddle (16) including a front face and a rear face; and a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027), wherein the paddle is positioned between the shaft and the blade, wherein the gripping structure is positioned on the shaft and on the front face (24) of the paddle (Para. 0026-0027).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the front face of the paddle” is directed to the location/position of the gripping structure. It is noted that a user could grip at a center portion of the shaft and so putting the gripping member at this location would be merely a matter of rearrangement of parts to provide a gripping member at desired locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Cross with the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the front face of the paddle as a means of mere rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Cross does not teach the gripping structure is positioned on a center portion of the front face of the paddle, and the gripping structure is convex, wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section.
St. Vincent (Figure 26) teaches a hockey goalie stick having a rectangular cross section (See fig. 1-2) (Para. 0043), where a grip structure (10) (Para. 0044) is located in the paddle portion of the hockey stick, wherein the paddle has a first thickness measured between the front face and a back face of the paddle (See fig. 1), and wherein the paddle has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, measured between a top of the gripping structure (10) (Para. 0044) and the rear face of the paddle (Para. 0038, 0052) (See fig. 1-5).
Eastman (Figures 1-17) teaches first gripping structure (Fig. 12, Part No. 20) is convex (Para. 0037).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” is directed to the embodiment in figure 16A-16B of applicant’s drawings. It is noted that the combination of Cross , St. Vincent , and Eastman under 35 USC 103 teaches the claim recitation of “wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” as Eastman teaches placement of the convex gripping structure on a hockey stick (Eastman: Para. 0037). Placing the gripping structure of Eastman at a location between the handle and paddle of Cross is merely a matter of rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cross with a hockey goalie stick having a rectangular cross section as taught by St. Vincent as a means of providing a hockey goalie stick with a rectangular cross section to accommodate a grip of a user (St. Vincent: Para. 0043) (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)), and to provide Cross with the first gripping structure is convex as taught by Eastman as a means of providing a hockey stick with a convex gripping device to align a user’s knuckles to achieve a proper grip (Eastman: Para. 0037), and also as a means of changing a shape of a gripping structure of a hockey stick to provide a convex shape to accommodate a grip of a user (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a second gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 32) (Para. 0026-0027), wherein the second gripping structure is positioned on the paddle and on an opposite side of the paddle from the first gripping structure (See fig. 6).
Claims 12-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross in view of in view of St. Vincent and Eastman, further in view of Rouzier (20190184249).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a curved blade (20) (Para. 0018).
The modified Cross does not teach the blade comprises a foam core.
Rouzier (Figures 1-30) teaches the blade comprises a foam core (Para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with the blade comprises a foam core as taught by Rouzier as a means of selecting a known material (a foam core) based on its suitability for its intended use (a hockey stick blade) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the gripping structure comprises a foam core.
Rouzier (Figures 1-30) teaches the gripping structure comprises a foam core (Para. 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with the gripping structure comprises a foam core as taught by Rouzier as a means of selecting a known material (a foam core) based on its suitability for its intended use (a gripping structure of a hockey stick blade) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the gripping structure comprises a composite.
Rouzier (Figures 1-30) teaches the gripping structure comprises a composite (Para. 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with the gripping structure comprises a composite as taught by Rouzier as a means of selecting a known material (a composite) based on its suitability for its intended use (a gripping structure of a hockey stick blade) (See: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a shaft (10) (Para. 0018); forming a curved blade (20); forming a paddle (16); and forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the blade, the shaft, the paddle, and the gripping structure are formed together in a first mold.
Rouzier (Figures 1-30) teaches forming a hockey stick in a mold (Para. 0020-0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with the blade, the shaft, the paddle, and the gripping structure are formed together in a first mold as a means a hockey stick in a mold (Rouzier: Para. 0020-0021).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the gripping structure is formed by layering one or more layers of fiber tape.
Rouzier (Figures 1-30) teaches the gripping structure is formed by layering one or more layers of fiber tape (Para. 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with t the gripping structure is formed by layering one or more layers of fiber tape as taught by Rouzier as a means of imparting desired geometries to a shaft structure (Rouzier: Para. 0020).
Claims 2, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross in view of in view of St. Vincent and Eastman, further in view of Blotteaux (20100323830).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027) extending from the shaft into the paddle (See fig. 7).
The modified Cross does not teach the gripping structure extends longitudinally from a midpoint of the shaft towards a top of the shaft.
Blotteaux (Figures 1-40) teaches the gripping structure (Fig. 28-33, Part No. 22) extends longitudinally from a midpoint of the shaft towards a top of the shaft (See Fig. 32) (Para. 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified Cross with the gripping structure extends longitudinally from a midpoint of the shaft towards a top of the shaft as taught by Blotteaux as a means of providing a sports stick with a gripping structure that may be located at a number of different locations along the shaft and may extend along either the full length of the shaft 10 or only along a portion (Blotteaux: Para. 0069).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the gripping structure is overmolded.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the gripping structure is overmolded” is directed to a product made by a process (a product-by-process claim). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of Cross teaches the final product of a gripping structure and therefore meets the claim. As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Blotteaux is being used to teach the recited limitation.
Blotteaux teaching using an over molding process in the formation of a hockey stick (Para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with the gripping structure is overmolded as a means of using an over molding process in the formation of a hockey stick (Blotteaux: Para. 0081).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Cross (Figures 1-7) teaches forming a shaft (10) (Para. 0018); forming a curved blade (20); forming a paddle (16); and forming a gripping structure (Fig. 7, Part No. 28) (Para. 0026-0027).
The modified Cross does not teach the formed blade, shaft, paddle, and gripping structure are overmolded.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the formed blade, shaft, paddle, and gripping structure are overmolded” is directed to a product made by a process (a product-by-process claim). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See: In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The prior art of Cross teaches the final product of a formed blade, shaft, paddle, and gripping structure and therefore meets the claim. As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Blotteaux is being used to teach an over molding process in the formation of a hockey stick.
Blotteaux teaching using an over molding process in the formation of a hockey stick (Para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cross with the formed blade, shaft, paddle, and gripping structure are overmolded as a means of using an over molding process in the formation of a hockey stick (Blotteaux: Para. 0081).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the recitation in claim 1 (and the newly added limitations of claims 11 and 20) of “the paddle has a first thickness measured between the front face and a back face of the paddle, and wherein the paddle has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, measured between a top of the first gripping structure and the back face of the paddle”, this is not found persuasive because the paddle has a first thickness measured between the front face and a back face of the paddle (See fig . 1), and wherein the paddle has a second thickness, greater than the first thickness, measured between a top of the first gripping structure (10) (Para. 0044) and the back face of the paddle (Para. 0038, 0052) (See fig. 1-5). It is noted that the prior art of Vincent (Para. 0052) discloses: “the finger guard may be incorporated integrally in the manufacture of the goalie stick by forming the finger guard of the same material as the body of the goalie stick at the time of manufacture” so that Vincent teaches the newly added limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20.
Applicant argues that moving the location of the claimed gripping structure is not a matter of rearrangement of parts, this is not found persuasive because claim 1 recites the limitation “the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” is directed to a convex gripping structure that is placed on a rectangular shaft (to achieve the claimed “five sided pentagonal crosse section”). It is noted that the recited limitation is directed to the embodiment in figure 16A-16B of applicant’s drawings. It is noted that the combination of Cross, St. Vincent, and Eastman under 35 USC 103 teaches the claim recitation of “wherein the gripping structure, a lower portion of the shaft, and an upper portion of the paddle form a five-sided pentagonal cross-section” as Eastman teaches placement of the convex gripping structure on a hockey stick (Eastman: Para. 0037). Placing the gripping structure of Eastman at a location between the handle and paddle of Cross is merely a matter of rearrangement of parts (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), by placing the convex gripping structure taught by Eastman at a location where a user may grip the gripping structure during use of the hockey stick. Applicant’s argument that the gripping structure of Eastman is not designed to be placed in a rectangular (or flat) surface is not found persuasive because Eastman teaches placement of the convex gripping structure on a hockey stick (Eastman: Para. 0037). The prior art of Cross (See Cross: Para. 0019) and Vincent teach hockey stick shafts having flat surfaces that is fully capable of receiving the grip structure taught by Eastman. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the combined teachings of the prior art teaches the claimed invention under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights