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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023 was/were considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Todd US 20020115499.
Regarding claim 1, Todd discloses a golf dampening system comprising: a continuous first half (12); and a band (13).
Regarding claim 2, Todd discloses that the continuous first half is comprised of a first recessed area (32).
Regarding claim 3, Todd further discloses that the continuous first half is comprised of a circular shape (Fig. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Todd further discloses that the band is comprised of an elastic band ([0028-29]).
Regarding claim 5, Todd does not disclose that the band is comprised of an indicia. However, it has been held that for an apparatus claim, matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). Here, the indicia is a design aspect of the band and serves no mechanical function. Therefore, it cannot be used to distinguish a claimed invention over the prior art, and it is not given any patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, Todd further discloses that the continuous first half (12) is comprised of a vibration-absorbing material (11).
Regarding claim 7, Todd further discloses that the vibration-absorbing material is comprised of a rubber ([0023]).
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.
Claim(s) 8-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd US 200250115499 in view of Kumamoto US 20030073508.
Regarding claim 8, Todd discloses a cylinder (12); and a band (13). However, it does not teach that the cylinder comprises a first half cylinder and a second half cylinder.
Kumamoto teaches a golf dampening system comprising a first and second half cylinder (20A,20B, Fig. 4B) in order to attach it to a pre-existing golf club shaft (1’). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylinder as taught by Todd by utilizing two half cylinder halves as taught by Kumamoto in order to attach the dampening member to the golf club.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination further discloses that the first and second halves are comprised of a first and second recessed area (Todd, 32).
Regarding claims 11-12, Todd further discloses a first interior surface (31) of the half-cylindrical first half is comprised of a first fastener (11) and that the first fastener is comprised of an adhesive fastener ([0025]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Todd further discloses that a second interior surface (31) of the half-cylindrical second half is comprised of a second fastener (11) and that the second fastener is comprised of an adhesive fastener ([0025]).
Regarding claim 17, see claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, Todd further discloses that the half-cylindrical first half and the half-cylindrical second half are comprised of a vibration-absorbing material (11).
Regarding claim 19, see claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 20, Todd discloses a method of using a golf dampening system, the method comprising the steps of: providing a golf dampening system comprised of a cylinder (12), and a band (13); positioning the cylinder on a golf shaft of a golf club (100) below a grip of the golf club (Fig. 1); and placing the band (13) around a recessed area (32) of the cylinder to secure the cylinder on the shaft.
However, it does not teach that the cylinder comprises a first and second half positioned opposite of each other.
Kumamoto teaches a golf dampening system comprising a first and second half cylinder (20A,20B, Fig. 4B) in order to attach it to a pre-existing golf club shaft (1’). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylinder as taught by Todd by utilizing two half cylinder halves as taught by Kumamoto in order to attach the dampening member to the golf club.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd US 200250115499 in view of Kumamoto US 20030073508 as applied to claims 11 and 14, respectively, above and further in view of Glanzner US 10550910.
Regarding claims 13 and 16, the combination does not teach that the first and second fasteners are comprised of magnetic fastneners.
Glanzner teaches a vibration dampener fastened to a tube (3) by adhesives (col. 13 ln. 40-45) or magnets (col. 14 ln. 38-44). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the means for fastening the dampener to the golf club shaft as taught by Todd by utilizing magnets as taught by Glanzner in order to achieve the predictable results of fastening a dampener to a tube to be dampened.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Todd US 6544129 and Kumamoto US 6935969.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm EST.
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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711