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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“handle…recessed within the outer surface of the target body” in Claim 1, and
“a horizontal handle recessed within the exterior surface” in Claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 9 recites: “a horizontal handle recessed within the exterior surface”. However, nowhere in the original specification including the drawings, any description or support for a horizontal handle recessed within the exterior surface is provided. Looking at Fig. 3, it appears the “handle” 150 is an angled handle. Further clarification, appropriate corrections and citation of pertinent portion(s) of the original specification (including drawings) where support for such limitation is provide, are respectfully requested. Claims 10-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of dependency upon claim 9.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le (US 2009/0082179 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Le discloses practice head target for striking practice comprising:
a target body (22) shaped in general conformance with a human head and having an exterior surface which presents a human face analogue (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ [16], [30]); a horizontal handle (grip 94) recessed within the exterior surface and opposite the human face analogue for manual manipulation of the head target during practice sessions (Fig. 3, ¶ [41]-[42], as much as applicant has shown the handle being horizontal and recessed within the outer surface of the target body, Le is also teaching such).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Heneveld (US 6,089,383).
Le is silent about a wall mount structure configured to interface with the handle of the head target and support the same.
Regarding claim 10, Heneveld teaches a wall mount structure (shelf 1) configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same (Figs. 1A-6, please note that upon modification of Le’s invention in view of Wiseman with the wall mount structure of Heneveld, the target body of Le can be placed on the wall mount structure/shelf (1) of Heneveld such that the at least a part of the wall mount structure/shelf (i.e., walls 10, 20, 30 or 40a/40b or the floor 11 or 21, etc.,) interfaces with the handle (94) of the head target and supports the same).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le’s invention with a wall mount structure configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same as taught by Heneveld to have the wall structure interface with and support the handle of the target body of Le in order to enable a user place the target body on the shelf for storage or organization purposes when the target body is not being used.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Milligan (US 2016/0220882 A1).
Although Le teaches the head target comprising ears (30, Fig. 1), Le is silent about eyewear grooves being located proximate structures of the head target which approximate ears.
Regarding claim 14, Milligan teaches a practice head target for striking practice comprising: a target body shaped in general conformance with a human head (1000, Figs. 1-2, 4a-5c), a plurality of audible targets contained within the target body in a manner approximate eyes of the head target (¶ [13]-[14], [33], [35]), and eyewear grooves located proximate structures of the head target which approximate ears (as shown below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Eyewear grooves)]
PNG
media_image1.png
545
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
566
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le’s invention with eyewear grooves located proximate structures of the head target which approximate ears as taught by Milligan in order to provide a more realistic target head for the user whereby the head target’s shape conforms more closely to that of a human.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Milligan as applied to claims 9 and 14 above, and further in view of Heneveld (US 6,089,383).
Le in view of Milligan is silent about a wall mount structure configured to interface with the handle of the head target and support the same.
Regarding claim 15, Heneveld teaches a wall mount structure (shelf 1) configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same (Figs. 1A-6, please note that upon modification of Le’s invention in view of Wiseman with the wall mount structure of Heneveld, the target body of Le can be placed on the wall mount structure/shelf (1) of Heneveld such that the at least a part of the wall mount structure/shelf (i.e., walls 10, 20, 30 or 40a/40b or the floor 11 or 21, etc.,) interfaces with the handle (94) of the head target and supports the same).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le’s invention in view of Milligan with a wall mount structure configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same as taught by Heneveld to have the wall structure interface with and support the handle of the target body of Le in order to enable a user place the target body on the shelf for storage or organization purposes when the target body is not being used.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le (US 2009/0082179 A1) in view of Wiseman et al. (US 5,897,446).
Regarding claim 1, Le teaches a practice head target for striking practice comprising:
a target body (22) shaped in general conformance with a human head and having an outer surface (Figs. 1 and 3, ¶ [16], [30]); a plurality of internal audible targets (at 26, Fig. 1) contained within the target body in a manner to approximate eyes of the head target (¶ [37]); a handle (grip 94) opposite the audible targets and recessed within the outer surface of the target body for manual manipulation of the head target during practice sessions (Fig. 3, ¶ [41]-[42], as much as applicant has shown the handle being recessed within the outer surface of the target body, Le is also teaching such); and two opposed recesses (100, 102) defined within the target body, proximate the handle (94, Fig. 3, ¶ [42]).
Le is silent about the audible targets being squeaking targets.
Regarding claim 1 , Wiseman teaches an apparatus with a plurality of internal squeaking targets (36 comprising 38, col. 3 lines 49 – col. 4 line 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le’s invention with squeaking targets as taught by Wiseman in order to reduce the overall cost of the apparatus while still providing feedback to the user.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wiseman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heneveld (US 6,089,383).
Le in view of Wiseman is silent about a wall mount structure configured to interface with the handle of the head target and support the same.
Regarding claim 2, Heneveld teaches a wall mount structure (shelf 1) configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same (Figs. 1A-6, please note that upon modification of Le’s invention in view of Wiseman with the wall mount structure of Heneveld, the target body of Le can be placed on the wall mount structure/shelf (1) of Heneveld such that the at least a part of the wall mount structure/shelf (i.e., walls 10, 20, 30 or 40a/40b or the floor 11 or 21, etc.,) interfaces with the handle (94) of the head target and supports the same).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le’s invention in view of Wiseman with a wall mount structure configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same as taught by Heneveld to have the wall structure interface with and support the handle of the target body of Le in order to enable a user place the target body on the shelf for storage or organization purposes when the target body is not being used.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wiseman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milligan (US 2016/0220882 A1).
Although Le in view of Wiseman teaches the head target comprising ears (Le: 30, Fig. 1), Le in view of Wiseman is silent about eyewear grooves being located proximate structures of the head target which approximate ears.
Regarding claim 5, Milligan teaches a practice head target for striking practice comprising: a target body shaped in general conformance with a human head (1000, Figs. 1-2, 4a-5c), a plurality of audible targets contained within the target body in a manner approximate eyes of the head target (¶ [13]-[14], [33], [35]), and eyewear grooves located proximate structures of the head target which approximate ears (as shown below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Eyewear grooves)]
PNG
media_image1.png
545
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
566
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le’s invention in view of Wiseman with eyewear grooves located proximate structures of the head target which approximate ears as taught by Milligan in order to provide a more realistic target head for the user whereby the head target’s shape conforms more closely to that of a human.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le in view of Wiseman and Milligan as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Heneveld (US 6,089,383).
Le in view of Wiseman and Milligan is silent about a wall mount structure configured to interface with the handle of the head target and support the same.
Regarding claim 6, Heneveld teaches a wall mount structure (shelf 1) configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same (Figs. 1A-6, please note that upon modification of Le’s invention in view of Wiseman with the wall mount structure of Heneveld, the target body of Le can be placed on the wall mount structure/shelf (1) of Heneveld such that the at least a part of the wall mount structure/shelf (i.e., walls 10, 20, 30 or 40a/40b or the floor 11 or 21, etc.,) interfaces with the handle (94) of the head target and supports the same).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Le’s invention in view of Wiseman and Milligan with a wall mount structure configured to interface with the various sport/exercise equipment and support the same as taught by Heneveld to have the wall structure interface with and support the handle of the target body of Le in order to enable a user place the target body on the shelf for storage or organization purposes when the target body is not being used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3-4 and 7-8, the prior arts of record fail to disclose, teach or render obvious a practice head target for striking practice comprising: a target body shaped in general conformance with a human head and having an outer surface; a plurality of internal squeaking targets contained within the target body in a manner to approximate eyes of the head target; a handle opposite the squeaking targets and recessed within the outer surface of the target body for manual manipulation of the head target during practice sessions; two opposed recesses defined within the target body, proximate the handle, a wall mount structure configured to interface with the handle of the head target and support the same, eyewear grooves located proximate structures of the head target which approximate ears and the wall mount structure further comprising: a wall mount body with at least two spurs positioned to interface about the handle of the head target in the opposed recesses; a wall mount plate located on a side of the wall mount body opposite the plurality of spurs; and at least one spring positioned between the wall mount body and the wall mount plate (claims 3 and 7).
As shown above the prior arts of record (Le in view of Wiseman, Milligan and Heneveld), teaches a practice head target for striking practice comprising: a target body shaped in general conformance with a human head and having an outer surface; a plurality of internal squeaking targets contained within the target body in a manner to approximate eyes of the head target; a handle opposite the squeaking targets and recessed within the outer surface of the target body for manual manipulation of the head target during practice sessions; two opposed recesses defined within the target body, proximate the handle, a wall mount structure configured to interface with the handle of the head target and support the same (see above for details). However, Le alone or in view of Wiseman, Milligan and Heneveld, fails to teach the wall mount structure further comprising: a wall mount body with at least two spurs positioned to interface about the handle of the head target in the opposed recesses; a wall mount plate located on a side of the wall mount body opposite the plurality of spurs; and at least one spring positioned between the wall mount body and the wall mount plate.
Also see attached PTO-892 for a list of other pertinent prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784