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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox (5105476).
Regarding claim 1, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68) and having an outer perimeter edge; and at least one fastener (18) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46) mechanically connected to the body portion, wherein the device further comprises a collar (12) extending approximately perpendicular from the outer perimeter edge, the collar including a neck strap (See fig. 1 where a strap extends between part numbers 18 and 20) (Col. 5, Lines 23-36), wherein the at least one fastener is mated with the collar (12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46).
It is noted that the prior art of Cox is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “a stickhandling training device”, “constructed and arranged to facilitate attachment of the stickhandling training device around a neck of a wearer”, “sized to encircle the neck of the wearer”, “configured to secure the collar on the neck”, “configured to obstruct a downward line-of-sight of the wearer at a selectable angle between approximately 30 degrees and approximately 85 degrees relative to a horizontal plane” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and do not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding claim 2, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches the first face is concave (See fig. 1-6, Part No. 14), and the second face is convex (See fig. 1-6, Part No. 14) such that the body portion is shell shaped.
It is noted that the prior art of Cox is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the shell shape conforms to the curvature of the neck to provide a stable attachment” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches the first face is concave (See fig. 1-6, Part No. 14), and the second face is convex (See fig. 1-6, Part No. 14) such that the body portion is a elongated bill shaped.
It is noted that the prior art of McCausland is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the body portion… extending forward from the neck to provide a visual obstruction below the horizontal plane of sight” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
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.
Claims 4, 7-9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of McCausland (5765223).
Regarding claim 4, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches at least one fastener (18) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46) mechanically connected to the body portion.
Cox does not teach the at least one fastener is a plurality of fasteners (Fig. 4 and 7, Part No. 26).
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches the at least one fastener is a plurality of fasteners (Fig. 4 and 7, Part No. 26) (Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with a plurality of fasteners as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device with fasteners that removably and tightly secure portions of the device together (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 7, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
Cox does not teach at least one surface feature in the body portion constructed and arranged to provide at least one of enhancing the structural integrity of the body portion, increasing air flow through the body portion, reducing the weight of the body portion, providing light pass-through of the body portion, or providing texture to the first face or second face of the body portion, wherein the at least one surface feature is configured to prevent fogging or condensation buildup on the surface.
McCausland teaches at least one surface feature (Fig. 4 and 8-9, Part No. 24) (Col. 3, Lines 34-42) in the body portion constructed and arranged to provide at least one of enhancing the structural integrity of the body portion, increasing air flow through the body portion (Col. 3, Lines 34-42), reducing the weight of the body portion (Col. 3, Lines 34-42), providing light pass-through of the body portion, or providing texture to the first face or second face of the body portion, wherein the at least one surface feature (Fig. 4 and 8-9, Part No. 24) is configured to prevent fogging or condensation buildup on the surface (Col. 3, Lines 34-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with at least one surface feature in the body portion as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device body portion with perforations (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
The modified Cox does not teach the at least one surface feature is a plurality of through-holes constructed and arranged to provide ventilation while maintaining visual obstruction
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches the at least one surface feature is a plurality of through-holes (Fig. 4 and 8-9, Part No. 24) (Col. 3, Lines 34-42).
It is noted that the prior art is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “constructed and arranged to provide ventilation while maintaining visual obstruction” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cox with the at least one surface feature is a plurality of through-holes as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device body portion with perforations (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 9, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a collar (12) extending approximately perpendicular from the outer perimeter edge, the collar including a neck strap (See fig. 1 where a strap extends between part numbers 18 and 20) (Col. 5, Lines 23-36).
Cox does not teach a collar extending from the edge of the body portion, and wherein the collar is constructed and arranged to flexibly conform to the concave first face.
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches a collar (Fig. 3-4 and 9, Part No. 14) extending from the edge of the body portion, and wherein the collar is constructed and arranged to flexibly conform to the concave first face (See fig. 3-4 and 9) (Col. 3, Lines 55-67; Col. 4, Lines 1-3).
It is noted that the prior art of is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the collar is constructed and arranged to attach around the neck of the wearer” and “the collar is constructed and arranged to flexibly conform to the concave first face” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with a collar extending from the edge of the body portion as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device body with a collar that provides spacing away from a user's face to comfortably accommodate eye glasses and/or breathing apparatus and provide protection from spatters (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 55-67; Col. 4, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a body portion comprising an opaque first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
The modified Cox does not teach the at least one surface feature is a plurality of through-holes.
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches the at least one surface feature is a plurality of through-holes (Fig. 4 and 8-9, Part No. 24) (Col. 3, Lines 34-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cox with the at least one surface feature is a plurality of through-holes as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device body portion with perforations (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 17, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a body portion comprising an opaque first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
Cox does not teach a collar extending from the edge of the body portion and wherein the collar is constructed and arranged to flexibly conform to the concave first face.
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches a collar (Fig. 3-4 and 9, Part No. 14) extending from the edge of the body portion (See fig. 3-4 and 9) (Col. 3, Lines 55-67; Col. 4, Lines 1-3).
It is noted that the prior art is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the collar is constructed and arranged to flexibly conform to the concave first face” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with a collar extending from the edge of the body portion as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device body with a collar that provides spacing away from a user's face to comfortably accommodate eye glasses and/or breathing apparatus and provide protection from spatters (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 55-67; Col. 4, Lines 1-3).
Claims 10-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Handfield (20220047032) and McCausland (5765223).
Regarding claim 10, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68) and having an outer perimeter edge such that the body portion is shell shaped; at least one fastener (18) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46) mechanically connected to the body portion; and further comprising a collar (12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46).
Cox does not teach the at least one fastener is selected from the group consisting of adjustable straps, hook- and-loop fasteners, snap-fit connectors, or mechanical clips, configured to provide a detachable and reconfigurable attachment; wherein the at least one fastener is coupled to a connecting plate.
Handfield teaches the at least one fastener is selected from the group consisting of adjustable straps, hook-and-loop fasteners (Para. 0072), snap-fit connector, or mechanical clips.
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches the least one fastener (Fig. 4 and 7, Part No. 26) (Col. 3, Lines 21-25) is coupled to a connecting plate (Fig. 4, Part No. 14).
It is noted that the combination of prior art is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “a stickhandling training device”, “to conform to a wearer's neck region for a secure attachment”, “constructed and arranged to facilitate attachment of the stickhandling training device around a neck of a wearer”, “configured to couple to a clip for attachment to gear”, “constructed and arranged to at least partially obstruct the line-of-sight of a wearer without obstructing the forward field of vision”, “configured to extend outwardly from the wearer's neck region at a predefined angle to create a controlled visual obstruction optimized for stickhandling training”, “the body portion extends outwardly from the wearer's neck region at a predefined, selectable angle between approximately 30 degrees and approximately 85 degrees relative to a horizontal plane to create a controlled visual obstruction optimized for stickhandling training”, “sized to encircle the wearer's neck” and “to retain the predefined angle during use” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with the at least one fastener is a hook-and-loop fastener as taught by Handfield as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a fastener used with a training device) for another (a hook and loop fastener used with a training device) to obtain predictable results (a training device that is worn by a user) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Handfield: 0072), and to provide Cox with the at least one fastener is coupled to a connecting plate as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device with fasteners that removably and tightly secure portions of the device together (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 11, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
It is noted that the prior art of McCausland is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the stickhandling training device is constructed and arranged to at least partially obstruct the downward line-of-sight of a wearer” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68) and having an outer perimeter edge such that the body portion is shell shaped; at least one fastener (18) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46) mechanically connected to the body portion; and further comprising a collar (12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46).
Cox does not teach the at least one fastener is a plurality of fasteners.
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches the at least one fastener is a plurality of fasteners (Fig. 4 and 7, Part No. 26) (Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with a plurality of fasteners as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device with fasteners that removably and tightly secure portions of the device together (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 13, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
Cox does not teach at least one structural feature constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion.
Handfield (Figures 1-25) teaches at least one structural feature (Fig. 3-4, Part No. 114a, 114b) (Para. 0061) constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion (Para. 0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with at least one structural feature constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion as taught by Handfield as a means of providing a body of a training apparatus with ribs configured to protect the wearer (Handfield: Para. 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
The modified Cox does not teach the at least one structural feature is a plurality of ribs arranged in a pattern of crossing ribs.
Handfield (Figures 1-25) teaches the at least one structural feature is a plurality of ribs (Fig. 3-4, Part No. 114a, 114b) (Para. 0061) arranged in a pattern of crossing ribs (Para. 0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cox with the at least one structural feature is a plurality of ribs arranged in a pattern of crossing ribs as taught by Handfield as a means of providing a body of a training apparatus with ribs configured to protect the wearer (Handfield: Para. 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 15, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
Cox does not teach at least one surface feature in the body portion constructed and arranged to provide at least one of enhancing the structural integrity of the body portion, increasing air flow through the body portion, reducing the weight of the body portion, providing light pass-through of the body portion, or providing texture to the first face or second face of the body portion.
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches at least one surface feature (Fig. 4 and 8-9, Part No. 24) (Col. 3, Lines 34-42) in the body portion constructed and arranged to provide at least one of enhancing the structural integrity of the body portion, increasing air flow through the body portion, reducing the weight of the body portion, providing light pass-through of the body portion, or providing texture to the first face or second face of the body portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with at least one surface feature in the body portion as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device body portion with perforations (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
The modified Cox does not teach at least one surface feature in the body portion constructed and arranged to provide at least one of enhancing the structural integrity of the body portion, increasing air flow through the body portion, reducing the weight of the body portion, providing light pass-through of the body portion, or providing texture to the first face or second face of the body portion.
McCausland (Figures 1-9) teaches at least one surface feature (Fig. 4 and 8-9, Part No. 24) (Col. 3, Lines 34-42) in the body portion constructed and arranged to provide at least one of enhancing the structural integrity of the body portion, increasing air flow through the body portion (Col. 3, Lines 34-42), reducing the weight of the body portion (Col. 3, Lines 34-42), providing light pass-through of the body portion, or providing texture to the first face or second face of the body portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cox with at least one surface feature in the body portion as taught by McCausland as a means of providing a shield device body portion with perforations (McCausland: Col. 3, Lines 21-25).
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Handfield (20220047032).
Regarding claim 5, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a body portion comprising an opaque first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
Cox does not teach at least one structural feature constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion wherein the at least one structural feature includes a plurality of reinforcing ribs configured to resist deformation upon impact.
Handfield (Figures 1-25) teaches at least one structural feature (Fig. 3-4, Part No. 114a, 114b) (Para. 0061) constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion wherein the at least one structural feature includes a plurality of reinforcing ribs (Para. 0060-0061) configured to resist deformation upon impact.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with at least one structural feature constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion as taught by Handfield as a means of providing a body of a training apparatus with ribs configured to protect the wearer (Handfield: Para. 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a body portion comprising an opaque first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
The modified Cox does not teach the at least one structural feature is a plurality of ribs arranged in a pattern of crossing ribs, wherein the crossing ribs provide reinforcement while maintaining a lightweight structure.
Handfield (Figures 1-25) teaches the at least one structural feature is a plurality of ribs (Fig. 3-4, Part No. 114a, 114b) (Para. 0061) arranged in a pattern of crossing ribs, wherein the crossing ribs provide reinforcement while maintaining a lightweight structure (Para. 0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Cox with the at least one structural feature is a plurality of ribs arranged in a pattern of crossing ribs as taught by Handfield as a means of providing a body of a training apparatus with ribs configured to protect the wearer (Handfield: Para. 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 18, Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a device, comprising: a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68) and having an outer perimeter edge such that the body portion is shell shaped; at least one fastener (18) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46) mechanically connected to the body portion, wherein the at least one fastener is mated with a collar (12) (Col. 4, Lines 39-46) extending approximately perpendicular from the outer perimeter edge; and further comprising a neck strap (See fig. 1 where a strap extends between part numbers 18 and 20) (Col. 5, Lines 23-36) on the collar.
It is noted that the combination of prior art is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “a stickhandling training device”, “constructed and arranged to facilitate attachment of the stickhandling training device around a neck of a wearer”, “constructed and arranged to at least partially obstruct the line-of-sight of a wearer, the body portion being configured to set an obstruction angle between approximately 30 degrees and approximately 85 degrees relative to a horizontal plane”, “to maintain the obstruction angle during use” as the recited limitations are directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Cox does not teach a plurality of ribs disposed on the body portion and arranged in a crossing pattern, the plurality of ribs being constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion.
Handfield (Figures 1-25) teaches a plurality of ribs disposed on the body portion and arranged in a crossing pattern, the plurality of ribs (Fig. 3-4, Part No. 114a, 114b) (Para. 0061) being constructed and arranged to provide structural support to the body portion (Para. 0060-0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cox with a plurality of ribs disposed on the body portion and arranged in a crossing pattern as taught by Handfield as a means of providing a body of a training apparatus with ribs for at least partially configured to protect the wearer (Handfield: Para. 0060-0061).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Cox (Figures 1-16) teaches a body portion comprising an opaque concave first face (14) (Col. 6, Lines 63-68; Col. 7, Lines 1-5) opposite an opaque convex second face (Col. 6, Lines 63-68).
It is noted that the prior art of Cox is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the stickhandling training device is constructed and arranged to at least partially obstruct the downward line-of-sight of a wearer” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, EUGENE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
