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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0217176).
Peterman discloses a golf swing training assembly for training the body motions of a proper golf swing (see embodiments shown in Figures 3-7), said assembly comprising: a plurality of shaft couplers (attachment 22 as shown in Figures 5A-C, 6A, 6B has first and second components 502, 504), each of said plurality of shaft couplers being curved about a longitudinal axis such that each of said plurality of shaft couplers forms a U-shape wherein each of said plurality of shaft couplers is configured to be positioned around a shaft of a golf club (each of the components 502 and 504 have “U” shaped interior that is configured to be positioned around a shaft of the golf club. See Figures 5A, 7A and 7B); and a plurality of sports implements (Figures 5A-5D disclose training device that looks like a tennis racket and Figures 6A-6B disclose a training device that looks like a baseball bat. In addition, paragraph 22 discloses that “it should be understood that the alignment component 26 could represent any of a number of different pieces of sports equipment used to hit an object in a sport other than golf, including but not limited to baseball, softball, hockey, lacrosse, field hockey, ping pong, racket ball, squash, cricket, and croquet”), each of said plurality of sports implements having unique structural characteristics with respect to each other thereby facilitating each of said plurality of sports implements to be employed in the game play of a variety of different sports (see Figures 5A-6B), each of said plurality of shaft couplers (22) being attached to a respective one of said plurality of sports implements (component 26 shown as a tennis racket in Figure 3A and component 26 shown as a baseball bat in Figure 3B) wherein each of said plurality of sports implements (26) is configured to be mounted to the shaft of the golf club (16) thereby altering the mechanics of gripping and subsequently swinging the golf club to enhance bodily awareness of a golfer while swinging the golf club for improving the golfer's golf swing (see abstract).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterman et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0217176) in view of Marshall, Jr. (US Patent No. 5,976,024).
Regarding claim 2, Peterman discloses each of said plurality of shaft couplers (attachment 22 as shown in Figures 5A-C, 6A, 6B has first and second components 502, 504) has a first end and a second end (the left and right end edges of 22, for example, as shown in Figure 5A) and an outer edge extending between said first end and said second end, said outer edge of each of said plurality of shaft couplers having a first lateral side and a second lateral sides (as shown in Figure 5A, the bottom ends of components 502 and 504 is considered as outer edge with lateral sides as recited); each of said plurality of shaft couplers has a shaft surface and an implement surface each extending between said first end and said second end; said shaft surface of each of said plurality of shaft couplers being concavely arcuate between said first lateral side and said second lateral side thereby facilitating said U-shape of each of said plurality of shaft couplers (each of the components 502 and 504 have “U” shaped interior that is configured to be positioned around a shaft of the golf club. See Figures 5A, 7A and 7B); each of said plurality of shaft couplers is elongated between said first end and said second end (as shown in Figures 5A-6B, the length from left to right end of element 22 is shown as being elongated between the ends as recited). Peterman does not disclose each of said plurality of shaft couplers has a pair of tabs each extending away from a respective one of said first lateral side and said second lateral side of said outer edge; and each of said pair of tabs on each of said plurality of shaft couplers being aligned with each other. Marshall discloses a coupler structure that has tabs that extend away from lateral sides of 25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the couple shape of Peterman with the coupler shape of Marshall changing the coupler’s shape is a routine design choice. Coupler shaped with tabs are well-known alternatives that provide predictable results of attaching a training device to a golf club shaft without altering the device’s function, and their selection would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, see rejection of claim 2 above. Marshall teaches the shaft couplers to include a screw (9) which extends through each of said pair of tabs; and said screw associated with a respective one of said plurality of shaft couplers urges said pair of tabs on said respective shaft coupler toward each other when said screw is rotated in a first direction wherein said screw is configured to compress said respective shaft coupler onto the shaft of the golf club for attaching said respective shaft coupler to the shaft of the golf club (see Figure 3 that shown the coupler 25, 25a and the bolt 9 in similar way as recited in the instant claim).
Regarding claim 4, see rejection of claim 1 above. Peterman discloses wherein said plurality of sports implements including a tennis racket (see Figures 5A-5C). paragraph 22 discloses that “it should be understood that the alignment component 26 could represent any of a number of different pieces of sports equipment used to hit an object in a sport other than golf, including but not limited to baseball, softball, hockey, lacrosse, field hockey, ping pong, racket ball, squash, cricket, and croquet” and paragraph 29 discloses that “various changes may be made in the implementations and architectures and different embodiments can be implemented. For example, equivalent elements may be substituted for those illustrated and described herein, and features can be utilized independently of other features, all as would be apparent to one skilled in the art after having the benefit of this description of the invention”. Even though the reference does not explicitly disclose a paddleball paddle and a steering wheel and a hockey stick and a pair of wings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add any known structure means to Peterman to use a known alternative training structure means.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ludovici (US Patent No. 10,946,260).
As discussed in claims 1-2 above, Peterman discloses plurality of sports implements but does not explicitly disclose a pair of wings; each of said pair of wings has a coupled end and a free end; said coupled end of each of said pair of wings being flattened; each of said pair of wings tapers to a blunt point at said free end; and said coupled end of each of said pair of wings is coupled to said implement surface of a respective one of said plurality of shaft couplers. Ludovici is an example of reference that teaches the attachment of wings (112a, 112b, 112c, 112n as shown in Figures 1-3); each of said pair of wings has a coupled end (section of the wings 112 attached to central wall 104) and a free end (the end of the wings (112a-112n) farthest from the center as shown in Figure 1); said coupled end of each of said pair of wings being flattened (as shown in Figures 1-2, (112) have flattened shapes); each of said pair of wings tapers ( as shown in Figure 1 the wings are shown as having tapers) to a blunt point at said free end (as shown in Figure 1, the corners of the wings (112) are considered as blunt point as recited); and said coupled end of each of said pair of wings is coupled to said implement surface of a respective one of said plurality of shaft couplers (as shown in the assembly of the coupled wings (112) in Figure 1, the wings are coupled to hub sections/coupling components that couple to the implement surface as recited). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Peterman device with wings as taught by the Ludovici reference in order to generate air resistance when swinging the sporting apparatus in order to condition the user to swing the apparatus faster, and without jeopardizing the motion of the swing as discussed in column 2 lines 60-63 of the Ludovici reference.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection of claim 9 above. Ludovici discloses each of said pair of wings as being located adjacent to a respective one of said first lateral side and said second lateral side of said outer edge of said respective shaft coupler associated with said pair of wings (for example as shown in Figure 1, the device has four wings and wings that are opposite to one another are considered as being associated as recited); and each of said pair of wings is oriented such that said coupled end of each of said pair of wings extends along an axis extending between said first end and said second end of said respective shaft coupler associated with said pair of wings wherein each of said pair of wings is configured to be gripped by the golfer when said pair of wings is mounted to the shaft of the golf club (see Figures 1-6. Two diagonal wings are shown as extending along an axis as recited).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is allowed.
None of the prior art or record disclose or render obvious handle is integrated into said second end of a respective one of said plurality of shaft couplers such that said head is spaced from said second end of said respective shaft coupler; and said shaft coupler on said handle is oriented to extend along a lengthwise axis of said handle and said head wherein said head of said tennis racket is configured to be gripped by the golfer when said tennis racket is mounted to the shaft of the golf club; paddleball paddle includes a handle and a head extending away from said handle of said paddleball paddle; said implement surface of a respective one of said shaft couplers is attached to a first surface of said handle of said paddleball paddle such that said head of said paddleball paddle is spaced from said second end of said respective shaft coupler on said paddleball paddle; and said shaft coupler on said handle of said paddleball paddle is oriented to extend along a lengthwise axis of said handle and said head of said paddleball paddle wherein said head of said paddleball paddle is configured to be gripped by the golfer when said paddleball paddle is mounted to the shaft of the golf club; steering wheel includes an annular ring and central hub and a plurality of arms radiating between said central hub and said annular ring; and said central hub has a slot extending through an outer wall of said central hub wherein said slot is configured to accommodate the shaft of the golf club having said hub extending around the shaft and having said annular ring encircling the shaft wherein said annular ring is configured to be gripped by the golfer when said steering wheel is mounted to the shaft of the golf club; hockey stick has an upper end and a lower end and a rear surface extending between said upper end and said lower end; said hockey stick is curved between said upper end and said lower end along an axis being oriented parallel to said rear surface thereby defining a handle portion of said hockey stick and a foot portion of said hockey stick; said upper end is associated with said handle portion; said lower end is associated with said foot portion; said implement surface of a respective one of said plurality of shaft couplers is coupled to said rear surface corresponding to said handle portion of said hockey stick; and said shaft coupler on said handle portion is oriented to extend along a substantial length of said handle portion wherein said foot portion of said hockey stick is configured to extend along a head of the golf club when said hockey stick is mounted to the shaft of the golf club; and a pair of wings; a respective one of said shaft couplers is attached to said pair of wings; said shaft coupler attached to said pair of wings has a pair of rounded knobs each being disposed on said shaft surface of said shaft coupler attached to said pair of wings; each of said pair of rounded knobs extends between said first end and said second end of said shaft coupler attached to said pair of wings; and each of said pair of rounded knobs is positioned adjacent to a respective one of said first lateral side and said second lateral side of said shaft surface of said shaft coupler attached to said pair of wings wherein said pair of rounded knobs is configured to releasably retain said shaft coupler attached to said pair of wings on the shaft of the golf club when said pair of wings are mounted on the shaft of the golf club, when affixed in the manner claimed in combination with the other recited features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711