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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 filing of international application PCT/EP2022/077215, filed on 09/29/2022, and claims the benefit of foreign patent application FR2110312, filed in France on 09/30/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2024 and 05/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is only 27 words in length. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50-150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 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 8 recites “at least 50% of at least one thermoplastic material or a mixture of thermoplastic materials” in lines 3-4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to and/or including the previously recited “at least one thermoplastic material” of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “wherein the composition includes: . . . 0-15% of the at least one adjuvant, and/or 0-30% of the at least one charge.” However, claim 7, upon which claim 8 depends, previously recites “wherein the composition includes at least one charge and/or at least one adjuvant selected from the group consisting of coloring agents, pigments, plasticizing agents, swelling agents, and anti-UV agents.” Claim 7 limits the composition to include at least one of a charge and an adjuvant, but claim 8 does not require either an adjuvant or a charge if the values of the composition can both be 0%. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “the at least one adjuvant” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “wherein the composition includes: 0 to 10% of the at least one adjuvant, and/or 0 to 20% of the at least one charge” and depends from claim 8. For the same reasons indicated above for claim 8, claim 19 is indefinite.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 9, respectively.
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, 4-5, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gras et al. (FR 3004358 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gras et al. discloses a removable climbing hold (catches 3) for an artificial climbing structure (wall 1),
wherein the removable climbing hold comprises a body (shells 10),
wherein the body is made from a composition including at least one thermoplastic material (Abstract, “These catches are derived from the transformation of thermoplastic material, it is in the form of a thin shell made of this thermoplastic material”).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gras et al. discloses wherein at least 50% of the body (10) has a thickness greater than or equal to 8mm (second to last paragraph on page 2, “The thickness of this shell is a function of the shape and size of the plug model. For example this thickness can be between 2mm and 12mm but can reach 20mm in some cases.” indicating the entirety of the body/shell 8 can be greater than or equal to 10mm based on the plug model).
Regarding claim 4, Gras et al. discloses wherein the body has a hollow monobloc shape (see Fig. 2; first paragraph on page 2, “According to a common embodiment, artificial climbing catches are obtained by molding resin or resin concrete. Climbing holds are most often in the form of a solid body tinted in the mass. Climbing holds thus made can be partly hollowed out by plunging, for example, counter-molds into the resin concrete before it catalyzes.”).
Regarding claim 5, Gras et al. discloses wherein at least a portion of a first surface of the body (i.e., outer surface with coating 11) is configured to be in contact with a limb of a user (via user gripping or stepping on outer surface) and has at least one grained zone, at least 50% of a surface of the at least one grained zone being made from the at least one thermoplastic material (second to last paragraph on page 2, “In the majority of cases, the transformation operation makes it possible to obtain a smooth grip that does not have the adhering surface usually necessary for climbing. The use of grained material or having an adherent surface is however possible. In this case, the surface appearance can be obtained directly by the characteristics of the transformed material. Once the thermoplastic material is transformed, it is possible to apply a chemical or mechanical treatment on the outer surface of the shapes obtained. This treatment may for example be flaming, sanding or attacking a chemical. This treatment can be an intermediate step in order to create a grip before the application of a coating (11) or can also be the step that finalizes the appearance of the product.”).
Regarding claim 10, Gras et al. further discloses an artificial climbing structure including at least one wall (1) and at least one climbing hold as claimed in claim 1 (catches 3), mounted on and fixed to the wall (via bolts 4 and inserts 5).
Regarding claim 16, Gras et al. further discloses wherein most of the body (10) has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 mm (second to last paragraph on page 2, “The thickness of this shell is a function of the shape and size of the plug model. For example this thickness can be between 2mm and 12mm but can reach 20mm in some cases” indicating the entirety of the body/shell 10 can be greater than or equal to 10mm based on the plug model).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 5, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101791459 B1) and further in view of Gras et al. (FR 3004358 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kim teaches a removable climbing hold (catching portion 10) for an artificial climbing structure (wall W),
wherein the removable climbing hold comprises a body (see body in Fig. 2),
wherein the body is made from a composition including at least one plastic material (polyurethane, see sixth paragraph on page 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
298
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim does not teach the composition includes at least one thermoplastic material.
Gras et al. teaches an analogous removable climbing hold (catches 3) comprising a body (10), wherein the body is made from a composition including at least one thermoplastic material (Abstract, “These catches are derived from the transformation of thermoplastic material, it is in the form of a thin shell made of this thermoplastic material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of the climbing hold of Kim to be molded of at least one thermoplastic material, as is similarly taught by Gras et al., as a matter of selecting a suitable material for constructing a climbing hold to support a user’s grip thereon. It has been held to be within the ordinary skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified further teaches wherein the size of the body can vary (second paragraph under “Specific Contents for Carrying Out the Invention” on page 3, “The shape, size, and color of the grip portion 10 are various”), but does not teach wherein at least 50% of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of Kim such that at least 50% of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 8 mm as a matter of obvious design choice since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the climbing hold of Kim would not operate differently with the claimed thickness, and applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified further teaches wherein the body has a solid monobloc shape (see Fig. 2), and further teaches wherein the size of the body can vary (second paragraph under “Specific Contents for Carrying Out the Invention” on page 3, “The shape, size, and color of the grip portion 10 are various”), but does not teach wherein at least 50% of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of Kim such that at least 50% of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 5 mm as a matter of obvious design choice since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the climbing hold of Kim would not operate differently with the claimed thickness, and applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Kim as modified further teaches wherein at least a portion of a first surface of the body (i.e., outer surface) is configured to be in contact with a limb of a user (via user gripping or stepping on outer surface) and has at least one grained zone (friction portion 20; sixth paragraph under “Specific Contents for Carrying Out the Invention” on page 3, “The friction portion 20 is partly provided on the surface of the grip portion 1, and the surface of the friction portion 20 is roughened to prevent the slip”), at least 50% of a surface of the at least one grained zone being made from the at least one thermoplastic material (as modified by Gras et al., the body including the grained zone will be molded from the thermoplastic material; seventh paragraph under “Specific Contents for Carrying Out the Invention” on page 3, “the mold (for example, the silicone mold) may have a shape as illustrated in FIG. 1 by being integrally molded in the mold and having roughness on the inner surface of the mold (for example, a silicone mold) only in a portion corresponding to the friction portion 20”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim as modified further teaches an artificial climbing structure (Fig. 2) including at least one wall (wall W) and at least one climbing hold as claimed in claim 1 (catching portion 10), mounted on and fixed to the wall (via bolts 13).
Regarding claim 16, Kim as modified further teaches wherein the size of the body can vary (second paragraph under “Specific Contents for Carrying Out the Invention” on page 3, “The shape, size, and color of the grip portion 10 are various”), but does not teach wherein most of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of Kim such that most of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 mm as a matter of obvious design choice since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the climbing hold of Kim would not operate differently.
Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified further teaches wherein the body has a solid monobloc shape (see Fig. 2), and further teaches wherein the size of the body can vary (second paragraph under “Specific Contents for Carrying Out the Invention” on page 3, “The shape, size, and color of the grip portion 10 are various”), but does not teach wherein most of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 8 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of Kim such that most of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 8 mm as a matter of obvious design choice since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the climbing hold of Kim would not operate differently with the claimed thickness, and applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Kim as modified further teaches wherein the body has a solid monobloc shape (see Fig. 2), and further teaches wherein the size of the body can vary (second paragraph under “Specific Contents for Carrying Out the Invention” on page 3, “The shape, size, and color of the grip portion 10 are various”), but does not teach wherein most of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of Kim such that most of the body has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 mm as a matter of obvious design choice since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the climbing hold of Kim would not operate differently with the claimed thickness, and applicant places no criticality on the thickness claimed.
Claims 6-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101791459 B1) in view of Gras et al. (FR 3004358 A1), and further in view of Penney (US 9,907,993).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Gras et al. does not teach wherein the at least one thermoplastic material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethanes, copolyester thermoplastic elastomers, polyamide thermoplastic elastomers, styrene-based thermoplastic elastomers, thermoplastic polyolefins, polyacrylics, polycarbonates, polyphenylene sulfide, and/or polymethacrylates.
Penney, in the same field of endeavor with regards to gripping structures in the art of exercise devices, teaches a grip structure (10, 110) comprising a body (see tubular body of grip 10 in Fig. 1 or grip 110 in Fig. 2) made from a composition including at least one thermoplastic material (col. 2 lines 23-26, “The grips themselves can be made out of many different types of materials. Examples would include rubber, foam, plastic, cork, polyurethane, gel, etc. Preferred is one of the many thermoplastics or elastomers”), and further teaches wherein the at least one thermoplastic material is selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethanes, copolyester thermoplastic elastomers, polyamide thermoplastic elastomers, styrene-based thermoplastic elastomers, thermoplastic polyolefins, polyacrylics, polycarbonates, polyphenylene sulfide, and/or polymethacrylates (see table listing possible thermoplastic polymers in col. 4 line 41 – col. 5 line 19; see “Broad Listing of Materials for Manufacture of Grips” in col. 5 line 36 – col. 6 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one thermoplastic material used to compose the climbing hold of Kim in view of Gras et al. to be selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethanes, copolyester thermoplastic elastomers, polyamide thermoplastic elastomers, styrene-based thermoplastic elastomers, thermoplastic polyolefins, polyacrylics, polycarbonates, polyphenylene sulfide, and/or polymethacrylates, as is similarly taught by Penney, as a matter of selecting a suitable material composition to construct the climbing hold to facilitate a strong structure and comfortable grip for a user. It has been held to be within the ordinary skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, absent criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Gras et al. does not teach wherein the composition includes at least one charge and/or at least one adjuvant selected from the group consisting of coloring agents, pigments, plasticizing agents, swelling agents, and anti-UV agents.
Penney, in the same field of endeavor with regards to gripping structures in the art of exercise devices, teaches a grip structure (10, 110) comprising a body (see tubular body of grip 10 in Fig. 1 or grip 110 in Fig. 2) made from a composition including at least one thermoplastic material (col. 2 lines 23-26, “The grips themselves can be made out of many different types of materials. Examples would include rubber, foam, plastic, cork, polyurethane, gel, etc. Preferred is one of the many thermoplastics or elastomers”), and further teaches wherein the composition includes at least one charge and/or at least one adjuvant selected from the group consisting of coloring agents, pigments, plasticizing agents, swelling agents, and anti-UV agents (col. 7 lines 50-54, “Other additives useful in the grip compositions include leveling agents, adhesion promoters, coupling agents, defoamers, hydrolysis stabilizers, UV stabilizers, pigments, dispersants, curing accelerators, diluents, or combinations thereof”; see also listing of possible filler materials in col. 7 line 58 – col. 8 line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition used to compose the climbing hold of Kim in view of Gras et al. to further include at least one charge and/or at least one adjuvant selected from the group consisting of coloring agents, pigments, plasticizing agents, swelling agents, and anti-UV agents, as is similarly taught by Penney, as a matter of selecting a suitable material composition to construct the climbing hold to facilitate a strong structure and comfortable grip for a user. It has been held to be within the ordinary skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, absent criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified by Penney teaches wherein the composition includes: at least 50% of at least one thermoplastic material (interpreted as the at least one thermoplastic material, see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) or a mixture of thermoplastic materials, 0 to 15% of the at least one adjuvant, and/or 0 to 30% of the at least one charge (as modified by Penney, see Penney col. 8 lines 19-23, “The filler content in the grip, based on the total solid weight, can range from 10% by weight to 90%, depending on the interaction of the fillers and the base elastomers. Preferred is 20% to 80% by weight and more preferred is 30% to 70% by weight” indicating the composition as modified by Penney can include the at least one adjuvant and/or at least one charge in the range from 10-90% of the total composition of the climbing hold, which includes a composition having at least 50% of at least one thermoplastic material, a range of 10-15% as claimed for the at least one adjuvant and 10-30% as claimed of the at least one charge).
Regarding claim 19, Kim as modified by Penney teaches wherein the composition includes: 0 to 10% of the at least one adjuvant, and/or 0 to 20% of the at least one charge (Penney col. 8 lines 19-23, “The filler content in the grip, based on the total solid weight, can range from 10% by weight to 90%, depending on the interaction of the fillers and the base elastomers. Preferred is 20% to 80% by weight and more preferred is 30% to 70% by weight” indicating the composition as modified by Penney can include the at least one adjuvant and/or at least one charge in the range from 10-90% of the total composition of the climbing hold, which includes a possible composition including 10% as claimed for the at least one adjuvant and 10-20% as claimed of the at least one charge).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101791459 B1) in view of Gras et al. (FR 3004358 A1), and further in view of Langerak (WO 2010008288 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified by Gras et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a climbing hold comprising:
injecting, intruding, and/or coextruding the composition including the at least one thermoplastic material into a flexible mold so as to obtain the climbing hold as claimed in claim 1 (seventh paragraph under “SOLVING MEANS OF THE PROBLEM” on page 2, “The present invention is achieved by a climbing hold having a double texture and a method for manufacturing the same, the method comprising the steps of: manufacturing a prototype of a climbing hold by cutting a raw material made of a foam into a predetermined shape; primarily smoothing a corresponding surface by applying putty to the remaining portion except for a hand held by a hand among the manufactured circular surfaces and polishing the same with a sandpaper; installing a masking tape on a portion held by the hand; applying paint and removing the masking tape; molding a mold with liquid silicone by using a circular shape; and molding a climbing hold by using the mold as a two-component non-foaming hard urethane”; see also from last two paragraphs of page 3 through third paragraph of page 4), but does not teach injecting, intruding, and/or coextruding the composition at low pressure.
Langerak, in the same field of endeavor with regards to methods of manufacturing molded products, teaches a method of manufacturing a plastic package in a mold (see Title, package 1) comprising injecting, intruding, and/or coextruding a composition including at least one thermoplastic material at low pressure into a mold (page 9 lines 26-27, “a package 1, preferably a blister package can be formed from thermoplastic material” and page 10 lines 1-3, “Through the inflow opening 29, under relatively low pressure, plastic is introduced into the mold cavity 20, for instance at a pressure of between 1 and 10 bars excess pressure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of manufacturing the climbing hold of Kim in view of Gras et al. to include injecting, intruding, and/or coextruding the composition at a low pressure into the flexible mold, as is similarly taught by Langerak, for the purpose of preventing adverse effects to the material properties of the climbing hold and to prevent excess high pressure within the mold (Langerak page 10 lines 3-6, “The filling pressure is selected such that a desired, short feed time is achieved without the material properties of the plastic being adversely affected and without undesirably high pressure occurring in the mold cavity.”).
Regarding claims 12-14, Kim as modified by Langerak further teaches wherein the low pressure is in a range of from 0 to 200 bar inclusive (claim 12), wherein the low pressure is in a range of from 0 to 75 bar inclusive (claim 13), and wherein the low pressure is in a range of from 0 to 50 bar inclusive (claim 14; Langerak page 10 lines 1-3, “Through the inflow opening 29, under relatively low pressure, plastic is introduced into the mold cavity 20, for instance at a pressure of between 1 and 10 bars excess pressure”).
Regarding claim 15, Kim as modified further teaches wherein the flexible mold is made of an elastomer material or rubber (silicone mold of Kim).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101791459 B1) in view of Gras et al. (FR 3004358 A1), and further in view of Manzaki (US 9,757,910).
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Gras et al. does not teach wherein the at least one adjuvant is a swelling agent selected from the group consisting of citric acid, sodium bicarbonate, azodicarbonamides (ADC), oxy-bis benzenesulfonyl hydrazides (OBSH), toluenesulfonylhydrazide (TSH), water, and plastic microspheres containing a gas.
Manzaki, in the same field of endeavor with respect to adjuvants added to thermoplastic molded products, teaches a composition for a molded product including a thermoplastic material (col. 6 lines 46-50, “As the polymer material, materials that have been used for the injection molded product in the past can be used without being particularly limited. For example, various thermoplastic resins and rubber can be used”) and at least one adjuvant that is a plastic microsphere containing a gas (thermally expandable capsules, col. 6 line 64 – col. 7 line 16, “The thermally expandable capsules used for the injection molded product disclosed herein are typically constituted as particles in which encapsulated substance (usually, a gas, a solid, or a liquid that is evaporated (gasified) by heating) that increases occupied volumes by heating are contained within outer shells made of a thermoplastic resin. Materials constituting the outer shells of the thermally expandable capsules include, for example, thermoplastic resins, such as polyvinylidene chloride, a vinylidene chloride acrylonitrile copolymer, polyacrylonitrile, an acrylonitrile-based copolymer, acrylic (co)polymers such as polymethylmethacrylate, and polyvinyl chloride. Additionally, substances (expanding agents) that are encapsulated by the thermally expandable capsules include, for example, low-boiling-point hydrocarbons, such as n-pentane, n-hexane, n-butane, isobutane, and isopentane. The encapsulated substances are not limited to the low-boiling-point hydrocarbons, and for example, inert gases (some or all can be obtained in a liquefied state), such as nitrogen and argon, in addition to air and carbon dioxide, can also be the encapsulated substances”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of material used to mold the climbing hold of Kim in view of Gras et al. to further include at least one adjuvant in the form of plastic microspheres containing a gas, as is similarly taught by Manzaki, for the purpose of increasing the volume of the molded climbing hold without significantly increasing the weight of the climbing hold, thereby reducing manufacturing and shipping costs, and for providing an uneven surface to the climbing hold as desired, thereby enhancing a user’s grip when using the climbing hold.
Regarding claim 20, Kim as modified Manzaki teaches wherein the at least one adjuvant is plastic microspheres containing a gas selected from the group consisting of carbon dioxide, isobutane, isooctane, isopentane, and pentane (see Manzaki col. 6 line 64 – col. 7 line 16 cited above for rejection of claim 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN FISK whose telephone number is (571)272-1042. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM M-F (Central).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/KATHLEEN M FISK/Examiner, Art Unit 3784