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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 11 and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,951 (hereinafter refers as “ ‘951”) .
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, claim 1 of ‘ 951, while including additional limitations, includes all the limitations of above claim 1, namely “ A hockey stick comprising: a shaft comprising a proximal end and a distal end; and a blade coupled to the proximal end of the shaft, the blade comprising: a heel, a toe, a top edge a bottom edge, a front face, a back face, a slot extending through the front face and the back face, wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot, the slot further extending along a portion of a blade length and having a top edge, a bottom edge, a toe end and a heel end, wherein a bottom edge of the slot is positioned closer to the top edge than the bottom edge of the blade, and an upper core element separated from a lower core element by a bridge, the bridge further comprising a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer, wherein the top bridge layer and the bottom bridge layer form the slot”. Every limitations in above claim 1 is recited in claim 1 of ‘951 and thus claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of ‘951.
Claim 2 recite the same limitations as claim 2 of the ‘951.
Claim 3 recite the same limitations as claim 3 of the ‘951.
Claim 4 recite the same limitations as claim 4 of the ‘951.
Claim 5 recite the same limitations as claim 5 of the ‘951.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, claim 6 of ‘ 951, while including additional limitations, includes all the limitations of above claim 16, namely “A hockey stick comprising: a blade removably attached to a shaft, wherein the blade comprises: a top edge spaced apart from a bottom edge by a blade height; a central region spaced between a heel region and a toe region; a front face opposite a back face; a slot defining an aperture extending through the front face and the back face, wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot; and an upper core element and a lower core element, wherein the upper core element defines a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg and the second leg both extend downward from an upper half to a lower half of a total blade height and toward each other, and the lower core element is positioned between the first leg and the second leg, wherein the lower core element is separated from the toe by the first leg and from the heel by the second leg.”. Every limitations in the above claim 16 is recited in claim 6 of ‘951 and thus claim 16 is anticipated by claim 6 of ‘951.
Claim 17 recite the same limitations as claim 7 of the ‘951.
Claims 1 and 3 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12, 042, 706 (“ ‘706”) in view of Ie US 2010/0035708 (“Ie”).
Claim 1, of ‘706, recite all the limitations of above claim 1 and 3, namely “A hockey stick comprising: a shaft comprising a proximal end and a distal end; and a blade coupled to the proximal end of the shaft, the blade comprising: a heel, a toe, a top edge a bottom edge, a front face, a back face, a slot extending through the front face and the back face, wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot, the slot further extending along a portion of a blade length and having a top edge, a bottom edge, a toe end and a heel end, wherein a bottom edge of the slot is positioned closer to the top edge than the bottom edge of the blade, and an upper core element and a lower core element; wherein the blade has a first thickness at the bottom edge and a second thickness at the top edge and wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness”, except the upper core element separated from the lower core element by a bridge; the bridge further comprising a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer, wherein the top bridge layer and the bottom bridge layer form the slot.
However, such construction is well known within hockey stick blades as taught by Ie (core foams 38(a) and 38(b) are separated by a bridge structure (39a-39b) to form a slot (cavity/pocket 37)(Figs. 10 and 11; paragraphs [0035] and [0036]). Therefore, 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 to form ‘706, whereas the upper core element separated from the lower core element by a bridge; the bridge further comprising a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer, wherein the top bridge layer and the bottom bridge layer form the slot for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in applying a known technique to a known device, to form a durable hockey stick blade that is sufficient to sustain large impact yet light enough to reduce user’s fatigue and alike.
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 1-15 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, defines the slot, and among other things, recites “a bottom edge” (line 12). Thereafter, the claim recites “wherein a bottom edge of the slot” (line 13). Since “a bottom edge” of the slot is previously defined, further clarification is require regarding the reiterating of the same limitations.
With respect to claim 3, the claim recites “the bottom edge” (line 1”) and “the top edge” (line 2). Since claim 1, defines “a top edge” and “a bottom edge” of the blade (lines 6-7) and “a top edge” and “a bottom edge” of the slot (line 12), further clarification is require to which “the top edge” and “the bottom edge” claim 3 further referred to.
With respect to claim 4, same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claims 2, 5-8 are rejected based upon their dependency to claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, same issues as discussed above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., further clarification is require regarding “a bottom edge” of the slot, e.g., line 11).
Claims 10-15 are rejected based upon their dependency to claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecchia Us 2006/0240918 (“Montecchia”) in view of Ie US 2010/0035708 (“Ie”).
As per claim 1, Montecchia discloses a hockey stick (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0003]-[0007] and [0011]-[0012]) comprising:
a blade coupled to the proximal end of the shaft (blade 10)(Fig. 1 in conjunction to [0003] and [0011]), the blade comprising: a heel, a toe, a top edge a bottom edge, a front face, a back face (Fig. 1),
a slot extending through the front face and the back face (groove 12)(Fig. 1; [0011]), the slot further extending along a portion of a blade length and having a top edge, a bottom edge, a toe end and a heel end (Fig. 1; [0011]), wherein [[a]] the bottom edge of the slot is positioned to the blade (slot 12)(Fig. 1; [0011]).
Montecchia is not specific regarding a shaft comprising a proximal end and a distal end.
Montecchia is not specific regarding wherein [[a]] the bottom edge of the slot is positioned closer to the top edge than the bottom edge of the blade; wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot; and an upper core element separated from a lower core element by a bridge, the bridge further comprising a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer, wherein the top bridge layer and the bottom bridge layer form the slot.
With respect to a shaft, Ie discloses a shaft comprising a proximal end and a distal end (shaft 20)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0022] and [0023]). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s with a shaft comprising a proximal end and a distal end for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in providing a conventional shaft, as a stick handle, suitable to be attached to the blade and to be grasped by a user to practice and play hockey.
With respect to the position of the slot, Ie discloses wherein a bottom edge of a slot is positioned closer to a top edge than a bottom edge of the blade (slot/cavity 37)(Figs. 10 and 11). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s wherein [[a]] the bottom edge of the slot is positioned closer to the top edge than the bottom edge of the blade for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in use of known technique to improve similar device in the same way to provide as slot within in the hockey blade as the blade maintains the properties of durability, toughness, fatigue resistance and alike (e.g., Montecchia’s [0007]). It is noted that it has been held that the nature of the problem to be solved may lead inventors to look at references relating to possible solutions to that problem. Id. at 1277, 69 USPQ2d at 1691. in Ruiz v. AB Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, within the modified Montecchia - Ie having the slot in a “higher position” (e.g., as taught by Ie) would have not changed such properties of durability, toughness, and etc..
With respect to “the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot”, the examiner construed the use of fibers around the edge of the slot as the claimed “an edge reinforcing material”, according to applicant’s disclosure in at least [96] and [101]. To that end, Ie discloses the use of fibers wrapped around the edge of slot/cavity 37 in [0035] and [0036] and in conjunction to Figs. 10 and 11. Ie also discloses an upper core element separated from a lower core element by a bridge, the bridge further comprising a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer, wherein the top bridge layer and the bottom bridge layer form the slot (such as core elements 38(a) and 38(b) separated by a bridge (39(a) and 39(b)) in Figs. 10 and 11 and [0035] and [0036])(note also the examiner’s marking hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot; and an upper core element separated from a lower core element by a bridge, the bridge further comprising a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer, wherein the top bridge layer and the bottom bridge layer form the slot for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in in applying a known technique to a known device, to form a durable hockey stick blade that is sufficient to sustain large impact yet light enough to reduce user’s fatigue and alike (note for example Ie’s [0006]-[0009] as the use of foam-to-fiber within a cavity/slot of a hockey blade provides suitable characteristics, such as flexibility, durability, impact resistance, and alike).
As per claim 7, with respect to wherein a cross section of the blade comprises a uniform geometry, note Montecchia’s Figs. 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecchia and Ie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garcia US 2009/0149283 (“Garcia”).
As per claim 2, Montecchia- Ie is not specific regarding wherein the upper core element has a different density and a different stiffness than the lower core element.
However, Garcia discloses wherein an upper core element has a different density and a different stiffness than a lower core element (Figs. 2 and 3; [0010]-[0012],[0022]-[0024] and [0045]). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia- Ie’s upper core element has a different density and a different stiffness than the lower core element for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Garcia suggestions that such different foams provide enhance the properties and performances of the hockey blade (e.g., in [0011] “The location and density of the upper foam core section relative to the lower foam core section allows the flexing and twisting characteristics of the paddle portion of the hockey stick blade to be more precisely controlled and thereby provide more consistent performance. In addition, the presence of higher density foam core materials allows the thickness of the plastic wrap along the front face and rear face of the blade to be decreased without adversely affecting the performance or mechanical characteristics of the blade”).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecchia and Ie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lukey et al US 5,827,141 (“Lukey”).
As per claim 3, Montecchia is not specific regarding wherein the blade has a first thickness at the bottom edge and a second thickness at the top edge and wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness.
However, Lukey discloses wherein a blade has a first thickness at a bottom edge and a second thickness at a top edge and wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (blade 1 with thickness 11 at the top, i.e., a second thickness, greater than a bottom thickness 10)(Fig. 3 and 4:1-10 in conjunction to Fig. 1 and 3:12-29). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s device wherein the blade has a first thickness at the bottom edge and a second thickness at the top edge and wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Lukey’s suggestions that such structure provide enhance properties and performances of the hockey blade (e.g., 3:22+” The adding of a perimeter ridge 11 to the blade 1 increases the blade's stability by helping the blade to maintain it's form at the time of shot impact. In other words the blade does not have a tendency to bend or give, as a conventionally designed blade would during shot impact. The increase in stability also adds to an increase in blade strength and durability.”).
As per claim 4, Montecchia is not specific wherein the blade tapers from the top edge to the bottom edge.
However, Lukey discloses wherein the blade tapers from the top edge to the bottom edge (blade 1 with thickness 11 at the top, i.e., a second thickness, greater than a bottom thickness 10, i.e., tapers from the top0to0bottom edges)(Fig. 3 and 4:1-10 in conjunction to Fig. 1 and 3:12-29). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s device wherein the blade tapers from the top edge to the bottom edge for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecchia and Ie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tiitola US 2001/0041633 (“Tiitola”).
As per claim 5, Montecchia is not specific regarding wherein a cross section of the blade comprises a variable geometry. However, Tiitola discloses wherein a cross section of a blade comprises a variable geometry (blade 1- core 2, with such geometry)(at least Fig. 2a and [0026]).
Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s wherein a cross section of the blade comprises a variable geometry for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Tiitola’s suggestions that such geometry enhances the properties of the hockey blade for strengthen and durability (e.g., [0005]-[0010]). Such strength and durability are much desired within the hockey blade of Montecchia.
As per claim 6, Montecchia is not specific regarding wherein a cross section of the blade comprises a non-uniform geometry. However, Tiitola discloses wherein a cross section of a blade comprises a non-uniform geometry (blade 1- core 2, with such geometry)(at least Fig. 2a and [0026]).
Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s wherein a cross section of the blade comprises a non-uniform geometry for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecchia and Ie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lacey et al US 9,757,631 (“Lacey”).
As per claim 8, Montecchia - Ie is not specific regarding wherein a cross section of the shaft comprises a variable geometry.
However, Lacey discloses wherein a cross section of a shaft comprises a variable geometry (stich handle 2 with a variable geometry)(at least Figs. 4-9 and 11A-11E; 5:55-7:21). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia- Ie’s device wherein a cross section of the shaft comprises a variable geometry for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Lacey’s suggestions to use a shaft with a variable geometry for enhance grasping of the hokey shaft-stick (e.g., 3:3-21).
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ie in view of Montecchia and Gans US 2012/0070301 (“Gans”).
As per claim 9, Ie discloses a method of forming a hockey stick (forming hockey stick 10)(in at least Figs. 1-2 and 10-11; [0022], [0023], [0035] and [0036]) comprising the steps of:
forming a shaft comprising a proximal end and a distal end (forming shaft 20)(Figs. 1 and 2; [0022] and [0023]);
and forming a molded blade coupled to the proximal end of the shaft (forming a molded blade 30)(Figs. 10 and 11; [0035] and [0036]), wherein the molded blade is formed by the following steps: forming a top edge spaced apart from a bottom edge by a blade height (Figs. 10 and 11), forming a heel spaced apart from a toe by a blade length (Figs. 10 and 11), forming a front face spaced apart from a back face (Figs. 10 and 11), forming a slot defining an aperture extending through (forming a cavity 37)(Figs. 10 and 11; [0035] and [0036]), wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot (construed as fibers therearound; Figs. 10 and 11; [0035] and [0036]; note the examiner discussion above with respect to claim 1, as the fibers wrapped around the slot construed as “edge reinforcing material” according to applicant’s disclosure) , the slot further extending along a portion of the blade length and having a top edge, a bottom edge, a toe end and a heel end (Figs. 10-11), and forming an upper core element separated from a lower core element by a bridge (forming upper foam core 38a and lower core 38b separated by a bridge (39a-39b)(Figs. 10 and 11; see also the examiner markings above with respect to claim 1) , wherein the bridge comprises a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer of fiber-reinforced material (layers/structure 39a-39b includes wrapped fibers thereon)(Figs. 10 and 11; [0035] and [0036]), wherein the top bridge layer is spaced apart from the bottom bridge layer to form the slot (Figs. 10 and 11 in conjunctions to [0035]), and wherein the top bridge layer abuts the bottom bridge layer (Figs. 10 and 11; again note the examiner’s markings above with respect to claim 1).
Ie is not specific regarding forming the slot defining an aperture extending through the front face and the back face; and wherein the bottom edge of the slot is positioned closer to the top edge than the bottom edge of the blade structure.
Ie is not specific regarding wherein the top bridge layer abuts the bottom bridge layer at a seam that extends backward from a center of the heel end of the slot and extends forward from a center of the toe end of the slot.
With respect to the slot means, Montecchia discloses forming a slot defining an aperture extending through a front face and a back face; and wherein a bottom edge of the slot is positioned closer to a top edge than the bottom edge of the blade structure (forming a slot 12)(Fig. 1 and [0011] and [0012]). Therefore, 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 to form Ie’s slot defining an aperture extending through the front face and the back face; and wherein the bottom edge of the slot is positioned closer to the top edge than the bottom edge of the blade structure for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Montecchia’s suggestions to form such slot that enhanced the performances of the blade-hockey device (e.g., [0004]” to improve the performance of the traditional wooden hockey stick blade by improving its durability and toughness without compromising its "feel".”). With respect to the bridge separating the upper and lower cores, Gans discloses wherein a top bridge layer abuts a bottom bridge layer at a seam that extends backward from a center of a heel end and extends forward from a center of the toe end (a seam separated top core/bridge layer of core 502A and core 502B)(Fig. 5 and [0029]-[0035]; note the examiner’s markings with respect to Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 to form Ie’s wherein a top bridge layer abuts a bottom bridge layer at a seam that extends backward from a center of a heel end and extends forward from a center of the toe end for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in applying a known technique to a known device, to form a durable hockey stick blade that is sufficient to sustain large impact yet light enough to reduce user’s fatigue and alike. Within the modified Ie, such core-to-bridge seam configuration would have been extended at end of the slot and extends forward from a center of the toe end of the slot (as taught by Ie).
As per claim 10, with respect to wherein the edge reinforcing material is formed by adding one or more layers of fiber material around the interior perimeter of the slot, note Ie’s [0036] regarding wrapping, adding, fibers to reinforce the slot/cavity 37.
As per claim 11, with respect to wherein edge reinforcing material is formed by adding one or more layers of fiber material around the interior perimeter of the slot prior to forming the molded blade, Ie discloses the fibers (i.e., the edge reinforcing material) pressed onto the slot /cavity 37, prior to the blade molding process is completed ([0036]).
As per claims 12, 13, with respect to wherein the slot further comprises a support element (claim 12) and, wherein the support element comprises a metal, an alloy, a polymer, or a fiber-reinforced material (claim 13), construed as the fiber material adding, wrapping upon the edge of the slot/cavity 37 of Ie (Figs. 10 and 11 in conjunction to [0035] and [0036]).
As per claim 14, with respect to wherein the support element comprises a foam core, note Ie’s Fig. 11 and [0036] regarding foam cores 38a and 38b.
As per claim 15, with respect to wherein the foam core further comprises one or more layers of fiber tape, note Ie’s Fig. 11 and [0036] regarding foam cores 38a and 38b, as adding fibers thereon.
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecchia in view of Ie and Gans.
As per claim 16, Montecchia discloses a hockey stick (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0003]-[0007] and [0011]-[0012]) comprising:
a blade removably attached to a shaft (blade 10)(Fig. 1 in conjunction to [0003] and [0011]), wherein the blade comprises: a top edge spaced apart from a bottom edge by a blade height (Fig. 1); a central region spaced between a heel region and a toe region (Fig. 1); a front face opposite a back face (Fig. 1);
a slot defining an aperture extending through the front face and the back face (groove 12)(Fig. 1; [0011]).
Montecchia is not specific regarding wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot and an upper core element and a lower core element, wherein the upper core element defines a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg and the second leg both extend downward from an upper half to a lower half of a total blade height and toward each other, and the lower core element is positioned between the first leg and the second leg, wherein the lower core element is separated from the toe by the first leg and from the heel by the second leg.
With respect to, wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot and an upper core element and a lower core element, Ie discloses the use of fibers wrapped around the edge of slot/cavity 37 in [0035] and [0036] in conjunction to Figs. 10 and 11 (as discussed above with respect to claim 1, such wrapped, additional fibers are construed as the claimed “edge reinforcing material”) . Ie also discloses an upper core element separated from a lower core element by a bridge, the bridge further comprising a top bridge layer and a bottom bridge layer, wherein the top bridge layer and the bottom bridge layer form the slot (such as core elements 38(a) and 38(b) separated by a bridge (39(a) and 39(b)) in Figs. 10 and 11 (note also the examiner’s marking hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 11) and [0035] and [0036]). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s wherein the slot comprises an edge reinforcing material extending around an interior perimeter of the slot and an upper core element and a lower core element as taught by Ie for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to wherein the upper core element defines a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg and the second leg both extend downward from an upper half to a lower half of a total blade height and toward each other, and the lower core element is positioned between the first leg and the second leg, wherein the lower core element is separated from the toe by the first leg and from the heel by the second leg, note Gans Fig. 5 (as marked hereinafter) in conjunction to [0029]-[0037]). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia - Ie’s wherein the upper core element defines a first leg and a second leg, wherein the first leg and the second leg both extend downward from an upper half to a lower half of a total blade height and toward each other, and the lower core element is positioned between the first leg and the second leg, wherein the lower core element is separated from the toe by the first leg and from the heel by the second leg for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in applying a known technique to a known device, to form a durable hockey stick blade that is sufficient to sustain large impact yet light enough to reduce user’s fatigue and alike.
As per claim 18, Montecchia discloses wherein the slot further extends along a portion of a blade length and having a top edge, a bottom edge, a toe end and a heel end (groove 12)(Fig. 1; [0011]).
As per claim 20, with respect to wherein the edge reinforcing material comprises one or more layers of fiber material positioned around the interior perimeter of the slot, note Ie’s [0036] regarding wrapping, adding, fibers to reinforce the slot/cavity 37.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montecchia, Ie and Gans as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tiitola.
As per claim 17, with respect to wherein a stiffness of the central region is less than a stiffness of the heel region and a stiffness of the toe region, such different stiffness construed as the blade having different geometry according to applicant’s disclosure. Applicant in at least [118] states “ The variation or change in the blade structure 5104 shape along the blade length and the blade height and change in a second moment of area of the cross-section along the blade length also varies the stiffness of the blade along the blade structure 5104 length and height.”.
Montecchia is not specific regarding wherein a stiffness of the central region is less than a stiffness of the heel region and a stiffness of the toe region.
However, Tiitola discloses wherein a stiffness of the central region is less than a stiffness of the heel region and a stiffness of the toe region (blade 1- core 2, with such variation, change geometry along the blade)(at least Fig. 2a and [0026]). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s wherein a stiffness of the central region is less than a stiffness of the heel region and a stiffness of the toe region for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Tiitola’s suggestions that such geometry enhances the properties of the hockey blade for strengthen and durability (e.g., [0005]-[0010]). Such strength and durability are much desired within the hockey blade of Montecchia.
As per claim 19, Montecchia is not specific regarding wherein a cross section of the blade comprises a non-uniform geometry. However, Tiitola discloses wherein a cross section of a blade comprises a non-uniform geometry (blade 1- core 2, with such geometry)(at least Fig. 2a and [0026]). Therefore, 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 to form Montecchia’s wherein a cross section of the blade comprises a non-uniform geometry as taught by Tiitola for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 1/28/2026 /JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711