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 06/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mason (20180326276).
Regarding claim 1, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches a puck (Fig. 19, Part No. 100) (Para. 0085) comprising: a body having a first axial surface, a second axial surface and a body peripheral surface extending therebetween, and the body defining a body cavity and an aperture (184) (Para. 0086) in the body peripheral surface for accessing the body cavity, the body cavity defining a sidewall, the sidewall including: a first portion; and a second portion defining a first connector (See fig. 19, Part No. 186), the first portion and the second portion being angled with respect to one another (see fig. 19); a tracking device (Fig. 19-21, Part No. 110) (Para. 0059, 0086) disposed in the body cavity; and a cap (Fig. 19-21, Part No. 182) received in the body cavity and closing the aperture (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0087), the cap (182) including: a cap body including: a peripheral portion (See fig. 19, Part No. 196a) having a peripheral surface and a chamfer surface (See fig. 19, Part No. 196b), the chamfer surface extending away from the peripheral surface and abutting the first portion for distributing loads experienced by the puck (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0087); and a protruding portion (See fig. 19) extending from the peripheral portion (196a), the protruding portion including: a lateral wall connected to the chamfer surface (196b), the lateral wall defining a second connector (196b), the second connector geometrically complementary to the first connector (See fig. 19-21), and in response to the first and the second connectors being engaged with one another, the cap securely connects with the body (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0088).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI. The claim recitation of “axial” surface is being interpreted to mean a surface that is “of, forming, or relating to an axis; situated around, in the direction of, on, or along an axis”. Under BRI, the claim recitation of “peripheral” surface is being interpreted to mean a surface that is “the external boundary or surface of a body”.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Mason Reference)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1384
947
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the first connector is a recess (See fig.19-21) (Para. 0087-0088); and the second connector is a projection received in the recess (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0087-0088).
Regarding claim 4, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the sidewall is a first sidewall (See fig. 19); the recess is a first recess (See fig. 19); the lateral wall is a first lateral wall (See fig. 19); the projection is a first projection (See fig. 19); the body cavity further comprises a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall (See fig. 19), the second sidewall having a second portion defining a second recess (See fig. 19); the protruding portion further comprises a second lateral wall opposite the first lateral wall (See fig. 19), the second lateral wall defining a second projection received in the second recess (See fig. 19).
Regarding claim 8, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the sidewall is a first sidewall (See fig. 19); the chamfer surface is a first chamfer surface (See fig. 19); the body cavity further comprises a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall (See fig. 19), the second sidewall having an first portion (See fig. 19); and the peripheral portion further comprises a second chamfer surface (See annotated Fig. 1 in this document) opposite the first chamfer surface (See fig. 19), the second chamfer surface extending away from the peripheral surface and abutting the first portion of the second sidewall (See fig. 19) (Para. 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 9, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the cap defines a longitudinal plane (See fig. 19); and the cap comprises a first surface (See fig. 19), and a section of the first surface extends outwardly at a wedge angle with the longitudinal plane (See fig. 19), and in response to the cap being received in the body cavity, the section of the first surface applies a pressure onto the body (Para. 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 10, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the section of the first surface is part of the peripheral portion (See fig. 19) (Para. 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 11, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the wedge angle is a first wedge angle (See fig. 19); and the cap comprises a second surface (See fig. 19), and a section of the second surface extends outwardly at a second wedge angle with the longitudinal plane (See fig. 19).
Regarding claim 12, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the second wedge angle is equal to the first wedge angle (See fig. 19).
Regarding claim 13, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the cap has an interference fit with the body (Para. 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 14, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the lateral wall is angled at an insertion angle from the second portion of the sidewall for facilitating insertion of the cap into the body cavity (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 17, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the cap (182) is a unitary piece (Para. 0085).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the cap is formed as a unitary piece” is directed to a product formed 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 Mason teaches the final product of a cap and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the tracking device (Fig. 19-21, Part No. 110) is aligned with at least one of a geometrical center of the body and a center of gravity of the body (See fig. 19).
Regarding claim 19, modified Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the body comprises: a first surface (See fig. 19); a second surface spaced apart from the first surface (See fig. 19); and a peripheral surface therebetween (See fig. 19), the aperture defined by the peripheral surface (See fig. 19); and the peripheral surface of the cap body being flush with the peripheral surface of the body (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0086-0087).
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.
Claim 3, 5-7, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (20180326276).
Regarding claim 3, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the second connector is a projection received in the recess (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0087-0088), the projection inherently having a shape.
Mason does not teach the projection is hook shaped.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the projection is hook shaped” is directed to the shape of a projection. Changing the shape of the projection of Mason would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was 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 container was significant).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the projection (196b) comprises: a sloped section having a first end and a second end (See fig. 19), the second end extending laterally outwardly from the first end; and an engaging surface (See annotated Figure 1 in this document) connecting the second end of the sloped section with the lateral wall, a projection of the engaging surface forming an angle with the longitudinal axis (See fig. 19).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the angle formed by the projection of the engaging surface and the longitudinal axis is 90 degrees or less (See annotated figure 1 in this document).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the engaging portion/surface (See annotated figure 1 in this document) is closer to the peripheral portion than the first end (See fig. 19).
Regarding claim 15, Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches an isolating layer (120a) (Para. 0086-0087).
Mason (Fig. 19-21) does not teach an isolating layer surrounding the tracking device.
Mason (Fig. 12) teaches an isolating layer (144) surrounding the tracking device (110) (Para. 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Mason (Fig. 19-21) with an isolating layer surrounding the tracking device as taught by Mason (Fig. 12) as a means of enclosing a tracking device in a capsule within a hockey puck (Mason (Fig. 12): Para. 0071).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Mason (Figures 19-21) teaches the protruding portion defines a cap cavity (See fig. 19), the cap cavity geometrically complementary to a portion of the isolating layer (120a) (Para. 0086-0087); and the portion of the isolating layer is received in the cap cavity (See fig. 19-21) (Para. 0086-0087).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Mason does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “a puck comprising: a body having a first axial surface, a second axial surface and a body peripheral surface extending therebetween, and the body defining a body cavity and an aperture in the body peripheral surface for accessing the body cavity” because the opening of Mason is not defined in the peripheral surface of the subcomponent 180 such that the opening 184 is not accessible from the peripheral surface, this is not found persuasive because claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI. The claim recitation of “axial” surface is being interpreted to mean a surface that is “of, forming, or relating to an axis; situated around, in the direction of, on, or along an axis”. Under BRI, the claim recitation of “peripheral” surface is being interpreted to mean a surface that is “the external boundary or surface of a body”. As shown in figure 19 of Mason, the puck of Mason includes first and second “axial” surfaces and a “peripheral” surface having an aperture. The aperture in the peripheral surface of Mason is fully capable of being used “for accessing the body cavity” as claimed (See Mason: Fig. 19).
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