DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFore (US9770625) in view of Orgain (US5188611).
1: La Fore discloses a gaff cover (Fig. 4, 200) comprising: a cover portion (202) configured to substantially cover a spike of a gaff, and a locking portion (204) configured to hingedly rotate (see col. 5, lines 35-47) about the cover portion (202); wherein when in a locked position (Fig. 4), the locking portion substantially covers a base member (Fig. 2, 114) configured to connect the gaff to a climber (Fig. 2, 102); and wherein when in an unlocked position, the locking portion is removable from the gaff (col. 5, lines 23-32).
LaFore fails to disclose wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of hinge attachments and also wherein the locking portion is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments.
However, whether to implement the live hinge of LaFore or a pin hinge is a notorious design choice. For example, Orgain teaches wherein a cover portion (21) comprises a plurality of hinge attachments (82) and also wherein a locking portion (23) is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges (76) coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments (82).
Accordingly, it 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 to have included wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of hinge attachments and also wherein the locking portion is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments in the gaff cover disclosed by LaFore according to the teachings of Orgain in order to provide an alternative to a live hinge arrangement.
2: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 1, wherein an interior of the cover portion (202) comprises a receiving portion configured to receive the spike of the gaff (see col. 4, lines 53-56 of LaFore: “First section 202, as illustrated, is preferably cylindrical in shape such that first section 202, when installed, surrounds a majority of gaff 114, particularly the sharpened surfaces of gaff 114”).
6: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 1, wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of stop portions (see Orgain, Fig. 18, detents 74b), and wherein when the locking portion is in an open-most position, a portion of the locking portion abuts the plurality of stop portions, see Orgain at col. 7, lines 63-67: “As the swing arm 82 of longitudinal member 21 is rotated about pivot pegs 76, it ultimately reaches a critical angle (preferably 90 degrees) at which protuberances 78 engage detents 78a, thereby securing longitudinal member 21 in the open position”.
7: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 1, wherein a length of the locking portion (LaFore, 204) is configured to fit a length of the base member (LaFore, Fig. 2, 115), and wherein a length of the cover portion (LaFore, 202) is configured to fit a length of the spike (LaFore, Fig. 2, 116).
8: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 1, wherein when in the locked position, the gaff cover substantially covers the gaff (see LaFore col. 6, lines 12-26).
9: LaFore discloses a gaff cover (Fig. 4, 200) comprising: a cover portion (202) configured to substantially cover a spike of a gaff, and a locking portion (204) configured to hingedly rotate (col. 5, lines 35-47) about the cover portion (202).
9: LaFore fails to disclose wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of hinge attachments and also wherein the locking portion is configured to hingedly rotate (about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments.
However, whether to implement the live hinge of LaFore or a pin hinge is a notorious design choice. For example, Orgain teaches wherein a cover portion (21) comprises a plurality of hinge attachments (82) and also wherein a locking portion (23) is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges (76) coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments (82).
Accordingly, it 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 to have included wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of hinge attachments and also wherein the locking portion is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments in the gaff cover disclosed by LaFore according to the teachings of Orgain in order to provide an alternative to a live hinge arrangement.
10: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 9, wherein when in a locked position (LaFore, Fig. 3), the locking portion (LaFore, 204) substantially covers a base member (LaFore, Fig. 2, 115) configured to connect the gaff (LaFore, Fig. 2, 114) to a climber (LaFore, Fig. 2, 102).
11: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 9, wherein when in an unlocked position, the locking portion is removable from the gaff (see LaFore, col. 5, lines 23-32).
14: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 9, wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of stop portions (see Orgain, Fig. 18, detents 74b), and wherein when the locking portion is in an open-most position, a portion of the locking portion abuts the plurality of stop portions, see Orgain at col. 7, lines 63-67: “As the swing arm 82 of longitudinal member 21 is rotated about pivot pegs 76, it ultimately reaches a critical angle (preferably 90 degrees) at which protuberances 78 engage detents 78a, thereby securing longitudinal member 21 in the open position”.
15: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 9, wherein a length of the locking portion (LaFore, 204) is configured to fit a length of the base member (LaFore, Fig. 2, 115), and wherein a length of the cover portion (LaFore, 202) is configured to fit a length of the spike (LaFore, Fig. 2, 116).
16: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 9, wherein when in the locked position, the gaff cover substantially covers the gaff (see LaFore col. 6, lines 12-26).
17: LaFore discloses a gaff cover (Fig. 4, 200) comprising: a cover portion (202) configured to cover a spike of a gaff and a locking portion (204) configured to hingedly rotate (col. 5, lines 35-47) about the cover portion (202); wherein when in an unlocked position, the cover portion covers the spike of the gaff and the locking portion is hingedly rotated about the cover portion such that the locking portion does not cover a base member of the gaff (col. 5, lines 5-11); and wherein when in a locked position (Fig. 4), the cover portion (200) covers the spike of the gaff and the locking portion (204) is hingedly rotated about the cover portion such that the locking portion covers the base member of the gaff (col. 5, lines 11-19).
LaFore fails to disclose wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of hinge attachments and also wherein the locking portion is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments.
However, whether to implement the live hinge of LaFore or a pin hinge is a notorious design choice. For example, Orgain teaches wherein a cover portion (21) comprises a plurality of hinge attachments (82) and also wherein a locking portion (23) is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges (76) coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments (82).
Accordingly, it 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 to have included wherein the cover portion comprises a plurality of hinge attachments and also wherein the locking portion is configured to hingedly rotate about the cover portion via a plurality of hinges coupled to the plurality of hinge attachments in the gaff cover disclosed by LaFore according to the teachings of Orgain in order to provide an alternative to a live hinge arrangement.
18: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 17, wherein an interior of the cover portion (202) comprises a receiving portion configured to receive the spike of the gaff (see col. 4, lines 53-56 of LaFore: “First section 202, as illustrated, is preferably cylindrical in shape such that first section 202, when installed, surrounds a majority of gaff 114, particularly the sharpened surfaces of gaff 114”).
19: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 17, wherein a length of the locking portion (LaFore, 204) is configured to fit a length of the base member (LaFore, Fig. 2, 115), and wherein a length of the cover portion (LaFore, 202) is configured to fit a length of the spike (LaFore, Fig. 2, 116).
20: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 17, wherein when in the locked position, the gaff cover substantially covers the gaff (see LaFore col. 6, lines 12-26).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFore (US9770625) in view of Orgain (US5188611) and further in view of Shay (US6148959).
3: Lafore in view of Orgain fail to disclose the gaff cover of claim 2, wherein the interior of the cover portion comprises a magnet configured to magnetically attach to the spike. Shay teaches at col. 7, lines 64-65: “use of a covering means whose inner surface is lined with magnetic material to magnetically engage the gaff G”. It 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 to have included wherein the interior of the cover portion comprises a magnet configured to magnetically attach to the spike in the gaff cover disclosed by Lafore in view of Orgain according to the teachings of Shay in order to further secure the cover to the gaff, see Shay at col. 7, lines 58-59: “Other force applying means”.
12: LaFore in view of Orgain disclose the gaff cover of claim 9, wherein an interior of the cover portion comprises a receiving portion configured to receive the spike of the gaff (see col. 4, lines 53-56 of LaFore: “First section 202, as illustrated, is preferably cylindrical in shape such that first section 202, when installed, surrounds a majority of gaff 114, particularly the sharpened surfaces of gaff 114”). LaFore in view of Orgain fail to disclose wherein a magnet configured to magnetically attach to the spike is positioned within the receiving portion. Shay teaches at col. 7, lines 64-65: “use of a covering means whose inner surface is lined with magnetic material to magnetically engage the gaff G”. It 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 to have included wherein the interior of the cover portion comprises a magnet configured to magnetically attach to the spike in the gaff cover disclosed by Lafore in view of Orgain according to the teachings of Shay in order to further secure the cover to the gaff, see Shay at col. 7, lines 58-59: “Other force applying means”.
Claims 4, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFore (US9770625) in view of Orgain (US5188611) and further in view of Shay (US6148959) and Pulaski (US12005331).
4: Lafore in view of Orgain fail to disclose the gaff cover of claim 1, wherein the locking portion comprises a plurality of slots, wherein each of the plurality of slots is configured to receive a magnet. Shay teaches at col. 7, lines 64-65: “use of a covering means whose inner surface is lined with magnetic material to magnetically engage the gaff G”. It 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 to have included wherein the interior of the cover portion comprises a magnet configured to magnetically attach to the spike in the gaff cover disclosed by Lafore in view of Orgain according to the teachings of Shay in order to further secure the cover to the gaff, see Shay at col. 7, lines 58-59: “Other force applying means”. LaFore in view of Orgain and further in view of Shay fail to disclose wherein the locking portion comprises a plurality of slots, wherein each of the plurality of slots is configured to receive a magnet. Pulaski teaches, in the context of covers engaging a blade portion and a shaft portion, wherein a plurality of slots are each configured to receive a magnet, see col. 2, lines 30-33 of Pulaski: “Body 20 further includes a series of magnets 28 embedded therein and positioned about body 20 in different locations to provide for a secure attachment of inner layer 22 to golf club iron 12”. It 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 to have included wherein the locking portion comprises a plurality of slots, wherein each of the plurality of slots is configured to receive a magnet in the gaff cover disclosed by LaFore in view of Orgain and further in view of Shay according to the teachings of Pulaski in order to prevent the magnets from scratching the surface of the gaff.
5: LaFore in view of Orgain and further in view of Shay and Pulaski disclose the gaff cover of claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of magnets are configured to magnetically attach to the base member (see Shay at col. 7, lines 64-65: “use of a covering means whose inner surface is lined with magnetic material to magnetically engage the gaff G).
13: Lafore in view of Orgain fail to disclose the gaff cover of claim 1, wherein the locking portion comprises a plurality of slots, wherein each of the plurality of slots is configured to receive a magnet and wherein each of the plurality of magnets are configured to magnetically attach to the base member. Shay teaches at col. 7, lines 64-65: “use of a covering means whose inner surface is lined with magnetic material to magnetically engage the gaff G”. It 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 to have included wherein the interior of the cover portion comprises a magnet configured to magnetically attach to the base member of the spike in the gaff cover disclosed by Lafore in view of Orgain according to the teachings of Shay in order to further secure the cover to the gaff, see Shay at col. 7, lines 58-59: “Other force applying means”. LaFore in view of Orgain and further in view of Shay fail to disclose wherein the locking portion comprises a plurality of slots, wherein each of the plurality of slots is configured to receive a magnet. Pulaski teaches, in the context of covers engaging a blade portion and a shaft portion, wherein a plurality of slots are each configured to receive a magnet, see col. 2, lines 30-33 of Pulaski: “Body 20 further includes a series of magnets 28 embedded therein and positioned about body 20 in different locations to provide for a secure attachment of inner layer 22 to golf club iron 12”. It 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 to have included wherein the locking portion comprises a plurality of slots, wherein each of the plurality of slots is configured to receive a magnet in the gaff cover disclosed by LaFore in view of Orgain and further in view of Shay according to the teachings of Pulaski in order to prevent the magnets from scratching the surface of the base member of the gaff.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's initial argument regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 17 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the hinges covering the base portion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant next argues that Orgain is non-analogous art because Applicant’s field of endeavor is a cover for gaffs whereas Orgain is directed to a “sheath for needles, sharp instruments and tools”. This argument is unpersuasive because, as Applicant points out, Orgain is related to protecting a sharp object with a cover and is thus reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the claimed invention is concerned, specifically, protection from being injured by a gaff, see e.g., [0003] of Applicant’s specification.
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 Ben Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571)272-9656. The examiner can normally be reached M to Th 7 to 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/BAP/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights