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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansen (CA1170287) in view of Pagotto et al. (CA2158898).
Regarding claim 1, Jansen teaches a hockey stick having a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a first end and a second end defining a length therebetween (Figures 1-3), comprising an upper section along the longitudinal axis terminating at the first end and comprising four walls, each of which comprises a cross-sectional convex surface (figure 2; page 3 lines 17-20) and a lower section along the longitudinal axis terminating at the second end and comprising four walls, each of which comprises a cross-sectional convex surface (figure 2; page 3 lines 17-20); and a blade connected to the second end (figure 1). Jansen fails to teach the hockey stick having a non-uniform cross-section along the shaft, and a middle section along the longitudinal axis comprising four walls, three of which comprise a cross-sectional convex surface and one of which comprises a cross-sectional concave. However, Pagotto teaches a hockey stick having a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a first end and a second end defining a length therebetween (figure 1), having a non-uniform cross-section along the shaft (page 22, lines 1-11), and a middle section along the longitudinal axis comprising four walls, three of which comprise a cross-sectional convex surface and one of which comprises a cross-sectional concave (4; figures 1-5). As Pagotto teaches similar art to Jansen, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the shaft of Jansen to include sections with different cross-sectional surfaces, including convex and concave options.
Regarding claim 2, Pagotto teaches a first transitional section between the upper section and the middle section (8; figures 1 and 6A; page 22 lines 13-19).
Regarding claim 3, Pagotto teaches a second transitional section between the middle section and the lower section (transition from shaft to taper on the shaft; figures 1 and 6A).
Regarding claim 4, Pagotto teaches that the lower section tapers towards said blade (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Jansen teaches said shaft having a hollow core surrounded by walls, said shaft having a generally quadrilateral cross-section (figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Jansen teaches that the cross-section is generally rectangular (figures 2 and 3; page 5 lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 7, Pagotto teaches that the concave wall is parallel to the blade (page 21, lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 8, Jansen teaches that the walls have equal thickness throughout the length of the shaft (page 6, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 9, as shown in Figures 2-3 shown walls as recited.
Regarding claims 10-13, the combination of references as used above do not explicitly use the length ranges as recited. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any working range including the recited ranges in these claims, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Jansen teaches that adjacent walls are joined by corners, and each of said corners is rounded (figures 3 and 3; page 3, lines 20-24).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the references do not explicitly disclose the flexibilities as recited. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the shaft of Jansen, as modified by Pagotto, so that the lower section exhibiting the greatest flexibility and second highest flexibility in the second section as recited, since an ordinary skilled person in the art would have routinely, thickness, curvature, and cross-sectional profile to place the region of maximum flex a desired location depending upon the intended performance characteristics. Selecting the lower section or the second section as disclosed merely represents one of a finite number of predictable design choices and would have yielded no more than the expected mechanical performance of the shaft. The precise ranking of flexibility among adjacent shaft sections constitutes an optimization of known design variables and represents nothing more than routine experimentation expected of one having ordinary skill in the art. Such optimization would have produced only predictable results.
Regarding claims 17-18, it would have been obvious to select a flexibility differential of approximately 24-26% between the lower section and the second transitional section and flexibility in the transitional section to be 7-9% higher as recited because the claimed percentage merely defines an optimized numerical value of a known result-effective variable once the locations of the flexible regions are selected, determining the relative magnitude of flexibility between adjacent sections through routine testing and optimization would have been well within the ordinary skill of the art. The claimed range is not shown to be critical or to achieve any unexpected result relative to neighboring values. Accordingly, selecting as flexibility difference within the claimed range constitutes routine optimization of a known design parameter.
Regarding claim 19, Pagotto teaches that the hockey stick is made from wood, polymer, or carbon fiber composite (page 21, lines 8-10, page 28 lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 20, Pagotto teaches that the hockey stick is made from carbon fiber composite (page 21, lines 8-10, page 28 lines 1-11).
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