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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 6, line 3, “stop step 26” should be changed to --step 26-- for consistency purposes (see page 6, lines 2-3).
Page 6, line 5, “plastics material attachment” should be changed to --plastics material sleeve-- for consistency purposes (see page 6, line 1).
Page 6, line 10, “lower tube end 2” should be changed since reference 2 was already designated as the “pole tube” (see page 5, lines 33-34).
Page 6, line 16, “tip 10” should be changed to --tip element 10-- for consistency purposes (see page 6, line 14).
Page 6, line 21, “conically convergent region 7” should be changed to --conically converging lower region 7-- for consistency purposes (see line 12).
Page 6, line 27, “retention region 15” should be changed to --cylindrical region 15-- for consistency purposes (see line 11).
Page 6, line 35, “cylindrical opening 15” should be changed to --cylindrical region 15-- for consistency purposes (see line 11).
Page 6, line 36, “region 31” should be changed to --cylindrical region 31-- for consistency purposes (see line 33).
Page 6, line 36, “opening 15” should be changed to --cylindrical region 15-- for consistency purposes (see line 11).
Page 7, lines 2-3, “plastics sleeve 3” should be changed to --plastics material sleeve 3-- for consistency purposes (see page 6, line 1).
Page 7, line 13, “steep thread flanks 21” should be changed to --opposing thread flanks 21-- for consistency purposes (see line 9).
Page 7, line 19, “face 17” should be changed to --conical surface region 17-- for consistency purposes (see page 6, line 19).
Page 7, line 21, “arrow 14” should be changed to --arow 24-- (see FIG. 2b).
Page 8, some of the reference signs listed do not have a correct element name used in the preceding pages and should be changed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
At least claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 1, “this tip” should be changed to --the tip-- or --said tip--.
Claim 7, line 7, “cylindrical region” should be changed to --substantially cylindrical region-- for consistency purposes (see claim 1, line 8).
Claim 8, line 4, “cylindrical region” should be changed to --substantially cylindrical region-- for consistency purposes (see claim 1, line 8).
Claim 14, line 2, “an attachment” should be changed to --a tip attachment-- in order to be consistent with the tip attachment recited in claim 1.
Claim 15 should end with a period.
Claim 19, line 2, “this tip” should be changed to --the tip-- or --said tip--.
Claim 20, line 3, “cylindrical region” should be changed to --substantially cylindrical region-- for consistency purposes (see claim 1, line 8).
It is also noted the reference claims in the dependent claims are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not (i.e. “as claimed in claim 1” vs. “as claimed in Claim 1”). All recitations of the previous claims should be consistent with each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a carrier element which is releasably secured to a drive-in thread which is provided in a retention region in a substantially cylindrical region in the opening” in lines 6-8. It is not clear how the carrier element can be “releasably secured to a drive-in thread provided…in the opening” when the carrier element appears to comprise the drive-in thread itself (as described in the specification and seen clearly in FIGS. 2a and 3) and is integrally formed therewith. For examination purposes, it is assumed the carrier element is secured to the retention region in a substantially cylindrical region in the opening via a drive-in thread (that is provided on the carrier element). Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the flat flank" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the retention region has at least one thread turn which extends around at least once and the flat flank of which facing the upper end of the plastics material sleeve encloses with an axis of the tip attachment a smaller angle than the steep flank thereof” in line 2-4. Due to the wording of this limitation, it is unclear which element “encloses with an axis of the tip attachment”. Furthermore, it is not understood what is meant by the term “encloses with” – is the axis enclosed by this element”? Are both the axis and this element enclosed by a different element? Additionally, it is not clear which element comprises “a smaller angle”. Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the steep flank" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “and such a tip” in lines 3-4. Due to the wording of the claim, it is unclear if this limitation it part of the “for receiving a hard tip” clause or the general “wherein” clause of the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if the “tip” (line 4) is the same as the “hard tip” (line 3). For examination purposes, it is assumed the “tip” in line 4 is a hard tip and is part of the “wherein” clause and therefore positively recited. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the retention region is at the free end thereof in the form of a tip without any thread” in lines 2-3. Due to the wording of this limitation, it is unclear if the tip is at the free end of the retention region or is the retention region is at the free end of another element. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites “a substantially cylindrical region (31) which follows it” in lines 2-3. It is not exactly clear what element is being referred to be the term “it”. For examination purposes, it is assumed “it” refers to the “conically converging tip region” (recited in line 2). Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the thread turn" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the highest protrusion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the thread turn" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the tip attachment" in line 1. It is unclear if the “tip attachment” refers to the device as a whole of specifically the tip insert. If meant as the entire device, it is unclear how the tip attachment can have an end “facing away from the plastics material sleeve” (i.e. facing away from itself since the plastics material sleeve is part of the overall tip attachment). Clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites “and such a tip” in line 3. Due to the wording of the claim, it is unclear if this limitation it part of the “for receiving a hard tip” clause or the general “wherein” clause of the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if the “tip” (line 3) is the same as the “hard tip” (line 3). For examination purposes, it is assumed the “tip” is a hard tip and is part of the “wherein” clause and therefore positively recited. Clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the retention region is at the free end thereof in the form of a tip without any thread” in lines 1-2. Due to the wording of this limitation, it is unclear if the tip is at the free end of the retention region or is the retention region is at the free end of another element. Clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites “a substantially cylindrical region which follows it” in line 2. It is not exactly clear what element is being referred to be the term “it”. For examination purposes, it is assumed “it” refers to the “conically converging tip region” (recited in lines 2-3). Clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the highest protrusion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the thread turn" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the outer diameter of the thread turn is at least 0.1 mm, or at least 0.5 mm, or in the range from 0.1 to 2 mm or 0.1 to 1 mm greater than the inner diameter of the cylindrical region” in lines 3-5. Due to the fact there are so many alternatives in this limitation, it is unclear what the outer diameter actually has to be since so many of the dimensions/ranges overlap. Additionally, due to the way the limitation is worded, it is unclear if both the range of 0.1-2mm and 0.1-1mm are included as being “greater than the inner diameter of the cylindrical region” or if is just the range of 0.1-1mm. Clarification is required.
Claim 21 recites “wherein it is a plastic material” in lines 2-3. It is not exactly clear what element is being referred to be the term “it” – the plastics material sleeve or the thermoplastic plastics material. Clarification is required.
Claim 21 recites “where applicable with fillers and/or fiber reinforcement” in line 4. Due to the wording of the claim, it is unclear what this phrase is referring to – all the previously recited plastics materials (lines 3-4) or only one of said plastics materials. Clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites “A method for assembling a tip attachment as claimed in claim 11”; however, claim 11 is a “method for assembling a tip attachment as claimed in claim 1”. It is not understood how claim 22 can be a method for assembling a tip attachment of a method of assembling a tip attachment. Additionally, it seems the method steps of claim 22 are exactly the same as claim 11, and therefore redundant/not further limiting. For examination purposes, claim 22 will be assumed to be a method for assembling a tip attachment as claimed in claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for engaging an assembly tool in the form of axially extending parallel engagement faces” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 5-7, 9, 11-15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (CN 203329296 U).
Claim 1: Jiang discloses a tip attachment for a pole, having a plastics material sleeve (2) which can be secured to the lower free end of a pole tube (not shown) and which has at an upper end an upwardly open hole (seen in FIG. 1) for receiving the lower free end of the pole tube, and at the lower end of which a tip insert (1, 3) is secured in an opening (as evidenced by FIG. 1), wherein the tip insert has a carrier element (3) which is releasably secured to a drive-in thread (as seen in FIG. 3, portion 3 has threading at the lower end thereof) which is provided in a retention region (not shown) in a substantially cylindrical region in the opening (3 must inherently be placed in a cylindrical region in an opening at the bottom of 2 in order to achieve the structure seen in FIG. 1).
Claim 5: Jiang discloses the carrier element as having at the end thereof facing away from the plastics material sleeve a tip expansion (portion 1) which, with a step being formed in the direction toward the plastics material sleeve, is constructed in a tapering manner so that a substantially radially extending stop face is formed between the retention region and the tip expansion (radially extending step between portions 1 and 3).
Claim 6: Jiang discloses the retention region has a free end comprising a tip without any thread (as seen in FIG. 3, the upper end of 3 has no threading).
Claim 7: Jiang discloses the tip has a conically converging tip region (at the top of 3, the tip start tapering as seen in FIG. 3) and a substantially cylindrical region (below the tapered region but above the threading) which follows it in the direction toward the drive-in thread and wherein the substantially cylindrical region has a smaller outer diameter than the highest protrusion of the thread turn of the drive-in thread (since the threading is located on the exterior surface of 3, the highest protrusions of the threading would inherently have a larger diameter than the cylinder upon which is it located in order to create the threading), and wherein the outer diameter of the substantially cylindrical region of the tip substantially corresponds to the inner diameter of the cylindrical region in the opening of the plastics material sleeve (the diameter of the cylindrical region “substantially corresponds” as it near the size of the diameter of the opening, albeit smaller so it can fit inside the opening).
Claim 9: Jiang discloses the plastics material sleeve as having, around the opening, a radially extending stop face (as seen in FIG. 3, the bottom edge of 2), the outer diameter of which substantially corresponds to the outer diameter of a radial stop face (as seen in FIG. 3, the top radial edge of 1) of the carrier element (as seen in FIG. 1, the top of 1 substantially corresponds to the bottom edge of 2).
Claim 11: Jiang discloses the plastics material sleeve as being presented and subsequently the carrier element of the tip attachment is hammered or pressed in an axial direction into the plastics material sleeve without using a bonding agent (the user presses while simultaneously rotating 1 into 2).
Claim 12: Jiang discloses the tip attachment as being secured to a pole tube subsequently or beforehand (a pole is inserted into the top hole of 2 at some point during assembling the tip attachment).
Claim 14: Jiang discloses a trekking pole, cross-country skiing pole, Nordic walking pole or alpine ski pole, having an attachment according to claim 1 (the tip attachment is to be used on a walking or ski pole).
Claim 15: Jiang discloses the tip attachment as being for a trekking pole, cross-country skiing pole, Nordic walking pole or alpine skiing pole (abstract; “alpenstock tip”).
Claim 18: Jiang discloses the carrier element as having at the end thereof facing away from the plastics material sleeve a tip expansion which, with a step being formed in the direction toward the plastics material sleeve, is constructed in a tapering manner so that a substantially radially extending stop face is formed between the retention region and the tip expansion (as seen in FIG. 3, 1 expands in diameter until it reaches a radially extending stop face which separates 1 from 3), wherein the tip expansion is formed at the side facing away from the retention region as a conically convergent surface region and/or in that the carrier element has, in the region thereof which is exposed in the assembled state of the plastics material sleeve, means for engaging an assembly tool in the form of axially extending parallel engagement faces.
Claim 19: Jiang discloses the retention region is at the free end thereof in the form of a tip without any thread (as seen in FIG. 3, the upper end of 3 has no threading), wherein the tip has a conically converging tip region (at the top of 3, the tip start tapering as seen in FIG. 3) and a substantially cylindrical region (below the tapered region but above the threading) which follows it in the direction toward the drive-in thread.
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) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 203329296 U) alone.
Jiang is discussed above but does not explicitly state what materials are used to form the plastics material sleeve and the tip attachment. However, it would have been obvious to make the plastics material sleeve for a thermoplastic plastics material, in injected form, selected from the following group: polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, polyurethane, polycarbonate, where applicable with fillers and/or fiber reinforcement since it has generally been recognized that selection of known material based on its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally, it would have been obvious to the carrier element from steel, including stainless steel or surface- coated steel, or zinc-plated steel since it has generally been recognized that selection of known material based on its suitability for the intended use involves only routine skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 8, 16, 20 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4, 17 and 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2268. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11AM-7PM 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, David Dunn can be reached at (571)272-6670. 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.
/DNJ/Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights