DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tucker (US Patent No. 6500079).
Regarding claim 1, Tucker discloses a hand-held section of a sporting good implement (Fig. 8), comprising: a body extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 5), the body having multiple interconnected faces distributed around the longitudinal axis (Figs. 5-6b); a palm-engaging section (col. 13, lines 42-61) defining a first face of the multiple interconnected faces; a finger-engaging section (col. 13, lines 42-61) defining a second face of the multiple interconnected faces opposed to the first face, a shape of the palm-engaging section different than a shape of the finger-engaging section (Fig. 11); and the palm-engaging section and the finger-engaging section being spaced apart by a transverse distance and the multiple interconnected faces of the body define a perimeter such that a circumferential overlap is defined between a distal phalanx of
an index finger of a user and a thumb of the user (Fig. 12), a tip of the thumb of the user circumferentially extending to at most a joint interconnecting the distal phalanx to a remainder of the index finger when the hand is wrapped around the hand-held section (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 2, Tucker discloses the hand-held section defines a finger-engaging groove (Tig. 5-6b: areas between overlays 502, 506, 508 are considered to be grooves) extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end of the hand-held section, the finger-engaging groove sized to receive tips of fingers of the user (Fig. 5-6b).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Tucker discloses the hand-held section defines a palm-engaging bump on the palm-engaging section configured to register with metacarpophalangeal joints of a hand of the user (Fig. 11: col. 13, lines 42-61).
Regarding claim 27, as disclosed in the abstract of Tucker, the sporting good implement is a hockey stick.
Claims 1-4, 12, 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoshizaki (US Patent No. 5423531).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshizaki discloses a hand-held section of a sporting good implement (Fig. 2), comprising: a body extending along a longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), the body having multiple interconnected faces distributed around the longitudinal axis (Figs. 3); a palm-engaging section (10) defining a first face of the multiple interconnected faces; a finger-engaging section (9) defining a second face of the multiple interconnected faces opposed to the first face, a shape of the palm-engaging section different than a shape of the finger-engaging section (Fig. 3-7); and the palm-engaging section and the finger-engaging section being spaced apart by a transverse distance (Fig. 3-7) and the multiple interconnected faces of the body define a perimeter such that a circumferential overlap is defined between a distal phalanx of an index finger of a user and a thumb of the user, a tip of the thumb of the user circumferentially extending to at most a joint interconnecting the distal phalanx to a remainder of the index finger when the hand is wrapped around the hand-held section (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Hoshizaki discloses the hand-held section defines a finger engaging groove (9) extending longitudinally from a first end to a second end of the hand-held section, the finger-engaging groove sized to receive tips of fingers of the user (Fig. 7-9).
Regarding claim 3, Hoshizaki discloses the finger-engaging groove is defined by a longitudinally extending face on the hand-held section, the longitudinally extending face being free of a convex surface (Fig. 3-7).
Regarding claim 4, Hoshizaki discloses the longitudinally extending face defines a concave surface (9).
Regarding claim 12, Hoshizaki discloses the hand-held section and a shaft of the sporting good implement are monolithic parts of a single body (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27, as disclosed in the title and abstract of Hoshizaki, the sporting good implement is a hockey stick.
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshizaki in view of Lacey et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0157478).
Regarding claim 5, Hoshizaki fails to disclose the finger-engaging groove is located at an intersection between two of the multiple interconnected faces. However, Lacey discloses an intersection (Fig. 10a-11e) between two of the multiple interconnected faces of a hand-held section of a sporting good implement in order to facilitate comfortable handling of the sporting good implement. It would be obvious for one skilled in the art to place the finger-engaging groove of Hoshizaki at the intersection of Lacey in order to provide a more ergonometric grip.
Regarding claim 6, Hoshizaki fails to disclose multiple interconnected faces are convex but for at the finger-engaging groove. However, Lacey discloses that the multiple interconnected faces are convex but for the finger-engaging groove (10c). As described above, it would be obvious to place the finger-engaging groove of D2 at the intersection of Lacey in order to provide a more ergonometric grip.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker.
Regarding claims 9-10, Tucker the hand-held section defines a palm-engaging bump, but does not specify explicitly the location of the palm-engaging bump with respect to the multiple faces. However, it would be considered an obvious variation to place the palm-engaging bump at a first face of the multiple faces and located between a first intersection between the first face and a second face of the multiple faces and a second intersection between the first face and a third face of the multiple faces given D1's stated intention to "provide better grip" (Fig. 11: col. 13, lines 42-61).
Regarding claim 11, Tucker discloses the hand-held section is defined by a shaft-plug (Fig. 8) secured to a shaft of the sporting good implement, the shaft-plug locally increasing a cross-sectional area of the shaft (Tig. 8). Tucker does not disclose that the shaft plug is removably secured to the shaft. However, removable shaft plugs are well known in the art, and this would be considered an obvious variation to one skilled in the art.
Claims 13, 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Lacey.
Regarding claim 13, Tucker discloses a sporting good implement comprising a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis, the shaft having a hand-held section defining: multiple interconnected faces distributed around the longitudinal axis (see Figures 5 and 8), the shaft having a hand-held section defining multiple interconnected faces distributed around the longitudinal axis (see Figures 5-6B), the hand-held section including a finger-engaging section and a palm-engaging section disposed on respective faces of the multiple interconnected faces (see Figure 11; column 13 lines 42-61), wherein the multiple interconnected faces define a perimeter such that a circumferential overlap is defined between the distal phalanx of an index finger and the thumb of a user when the hand-held sections gripped (see Figure 12). Tucker, however, does don’t expressly disclose that the finger-engaging groove located at an intersection between two of the multiple interconnected faces and extends longitudinally relative to the longitudinal axis. Lacey discloses a hand-held section in which a finger-engaging groove is positioned at the intersection between adjacent interconnected faces (see Figures 10A-10C and 11A-11E)., thereby facilitating ergonomic finger placement and comfortable handling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tucker by positioning the finger-engaging groove at the intersection between adjacent interconnected faces as taught by Lacey because Lacey teaches that such placement facilitates ergonomic handling, improves finger indexing, increases grip stability, and enhances user control. Applying Lacey’s known ergonomic grip configuration to Tucker’s handle merely yields the predictable benefit of improved handling characteristics without changing the intended operation of Tucker’s sporting good implement.
Regarding claim 16, Tucker expressly discloses a hand-held section defining a palm-engaging bump configured to register with the metacarpophalangeal joints of a user’s hand (see Figure 11; column 13, lines 42-61). As discussed above with respect to claim 13, Lacey teaches positioning the finger-engaging groove at the intersection between adjacent interconnected faces. Therefore, Tucker in view of Lacey teaches the limitations of the instant claim. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Tucker’s sporting implement with finger-engaging groove configuration taught by Lacey for the reasons set forth above, while retaining Tucker’s palm-engaging bump configured to register with the metacarpophalangeal joints, thereby yielding the predictable result of an ergonomically improved hand-held section that promotes consistent finger placement, enhanced grip stability, improve user comfort, and increased control during use.
Regarding claim 28, as disclosed in the abstract of Tucker, the sporting good implement is a hockey stick.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Lacey as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hoshizaki.
Tucker in view of Lacey teaches the sporting good implement of claim 13 as discussed above in claim 13. However, Tucker in view of Lacey does not expressly disclose that the finger-engaging groove defines a longitudinally extending face on the hand-held section, the longitudinally extending face being concave. Hoshizaki discloses a finger-engaging groove (9) defining a longitudinally extending face on the hand-held section, the longitudinally extending face being concave (see Figures 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the hand-held section of Tucker, as modified by Lacey, by providing the finger-engaging groove with the concave longitudinally extending face taught by Hoshizaki because a concave finger-engaging surface is a well-known ergonomic configuration that predictably improves conformity between the user’s fingers and the hand-held section, enhances grip comfort, improves tactile feedback, increases resistance to rotational movement, and promotes consistent finger placement during use. The modification merely incorporates a known ergonomic handle to obtain its recognized and predictable advantages without changing the intended operation of Tucker’s sporing good implement.
Claims 19, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker in view of Hoshizaki.
Regarding claim 19, Tucker discloses a hockey stick (see Figure 8) comprising a blade (802) and a shaft extending along a longitudinal axis from the blade end to a top end (804), the blade being affixed to the blade end of the shaft, (see Figure 8), the shaft defining a hand-held section having a baseline cross-sectional area and locally increasing the cross-sectional area of the shaft above the baseline cross-sectional area to provide an ergonomic gripping surface (see Figures, 5-12; column 13 lines 42-61). Tucker does not expressly disclose a finger-engaging groove extending longitudinally along the hand-held section and sixed to receive the tips of a user’s fingers. Hoshizaki discloses a longitudinally extending finger-engaging groove (9) on the hand-held section of a sporting goof implement, the groove being sixed to receive the user’s fingertips (see Figures 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tucker by incorporating the longitudinal finger-engaging groove taught by Hoshizaki because a longitudinal finger-engaging groove taught by Hoshizaki because a longitudinal finger-engaging groove predictably improves ergonomic finger placement, grip stability, tactile feedback, and user control while maintaining the intended operation of the sporting good implement. The modification merely incorporates a known ergonomic gripping feature into another ergonomic handle to obtain its recognized and predictable advantages.
Regarding claim 21, Tucker in view of Hoshizaki teaches the hockey stick of claim 19 as discussed above. Tucker, however, does not expressly disclose that the finger-engaging groove defines a longitudinally extending concave face on the hand-held section. Hoshizaki discloses a finger-engaging groove (9) defining a longitudinally extending face on the hand-held section, the longitudinally extending face being concave (see Figures 3-7). Additionally, Tucker expressly discloses a palm-engaging bump configured to register with the metacarpophalangeal joints of a user’s hand (see Figure 11; column 13, lines 42-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tucker by providing the finger-engaging groove with the concave longitudinally extending face taught by Hoshizaki because a concave finger-engaging surface predictably improves ergonomic conformity to the user’s fingers, enhances grip comfort, improves tactile feedback, increases resistance to rotational movement, and promotes consistent finger placement during use. The modification merely incorporates a known ergonomic finger-engaging contour into Tucker’s ergonomically contoured hand-held section to obtain its recognized and predictable advantages without changing the intended operation of the hockey stick.
Regarding claim 25, Tucker discloses a shaft plug (700) adapted to be affixed to the shat of a hockey stick, the shaft plug including a body defining a cavity (704) sixed to receive the hockey-stick shaft (see Figure 7). Tucker further teaches that hand-engaging overlays may be incorporated with shaft structurers to increase the effective perimeter and improve gripping characteristics of the hockey stick (see column 10 lines 22-67; column 13, lines 41-67; and see Figure 7). Tucker does not expressly disclose that the body defines a longitudinal finger-engaging groove sixed to receive the fingertips of a user. Hoshizaki discloses a longitudinal finger-engaging groove extending between opposite ends of a hand-held body, the groove being sixed to receive the tips of a user’s fingers (see figures 3-7). It would have been obvious to provide Tucker’s shaft plug with the longitudinal finger-engaging groove taught by Hoshizaki because both references address improving the ergonomics of sporting-good handles. Incorporating Hoshizaki’s groove into Tucker’s shaft plug would have predictably improved finger positioning, grip stability, and user control while maintaining Tucker’s intended function of enlarging the effective gripping surface of the shaft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571) 207-1775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights