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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim to continuation benefit through Application Nos. 18/464,983, 17/813,299, 16/715,810, and 15/962,373, and claims benefit of provisional Application Nos. 62/500,438, filed May 2, 2017, and 62/615,331, filed January 9, 2018.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 07 October 2024 has been considered. The references cited therein have been reviewed to the extent they comply with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. All properly submitted IDS references have been considered in the preparation of this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking et al. (US 20150013239 A1, "Sicking").
Regarding claim 1, Sicking teaches a sports wall assembly. Sicking states that the "objective of the energy absorbing sports board assembly" is to provide "a more forgiving wall that deflects" to reduce peak g loading, and that the system provides "the greatest energy absorption closest to the playing surface" ([0012]; Figs. 1-7). Sicking further teaches that the hockey board system relies on "hinges that allow each wall panel to rotate with respect to the adjacent panel," a "pre-tensioned spring system," "pre-tensioned cables," a ramp system, and a hinge system for the see-through material ([0013]; Figs, 1-7). This teaches the claimed wall assembly and plurality of movable walls because Sicking discloses adjacent sports-board panels that move laterally and rotate during impact.
Sicking teaches that the goal of impact attenuation is "to extend the duration of the impact in order to reduce accelerations" and that the wall system must "deflect laterally when struck by a player" to reduce applied forces ([0014]; Figs. 1-7). Sicking also teaches shock absorbing and restoring structures because it uses low stiffness springs to prevent puck-caused movement while reducing player forces, pre-tensioned cables to resist deflection and restore panel length, ramps to provide restoring force, and elastomeric foam to permit frame rotation and resist movement ([0017]-[0020]; Figs. 1-7). Under the BRI above, these springs, cables, ramps, and elastomeric foam teach first and second shock absorbers of a movable wall.
Sicking teaches the plurality of connections between adjacent movable walls. Sicking states that "[f]lexibility is provided by the extendable hinges used to attach adjacent wall panels to each other," that the hinges allow adjacent panels to rotate, and that the hinges use pins in slots that "allow two adjacent wall panels to move apart when pushed back and come back together" after impact ([0016]; Figs. 1-7). Sicking further teaches that "[e]xtendable hinges 3" have short slots for a pin to connect a panel to another similar panel, and that "hinges, linkages chains, lines, wires, and rope could be used to connect one panel to another" ([0026]; Figs. 1-7).
However, Sicking does not expressly state in the same words that at least one connection is positioned "directly between" the first shock absorber of the first movable wall and the second shock absorber of the second movable wall in the claimed perpendicular view. This difference is an obvious spatial arrangement of Sicking's known adjacent-panel connection relative to Sicking's known shock absorbing and restoring components. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have placed the adjacent-panel connection at the joint between corresponding shock absorbing or restoring components so impact load is transmitted through the joint while the panels deflect and return.
It would have been obvious to position Sicking's hinge, pin, slot, cable, linkage, or other adjacent-panel connection directly between shock absorbing or restoring structures of adjacent movable panels so that impact forces are transferred across the joint, the panels deflect laterally, and the system returns after impact. This is a predictable arrangement of known mechanical parts performing their established functions. The fact pattern closely matches In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), because those cases involved changing the position of a known control/contact where the relocated part continued to perform the same function and did not change the basic operation of the device. Here, Sicking already teaches adjacent-panel connections and shock absorbing elements, and the claimed difference is the relative position of those known parts. This rationale is further supported by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), MPEP § 2143(I)(A), and MPEP § 2144(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Sicking teaches movable walls positioned on transverse front wall supports. As applied to claim 1, Sicking teaches movable wall panels, a frame, ramp, catch plate, dasher, springs, cables, and other support structure. Sicking describes frame 1, ramp 11 attached under the frame, front catch plate 12 attached to the ramp, and dasher 15 attached to the frame on the playing surface side ([0026]; Figs. 1-7). Under BRI, the frame portions, ramp, and catch plate that support the front dasher correspond to transverse front wall supports. Sicking also teaches movement between positions because the panels move upon impact and return by springs, cables, and the ramp system ([0018]-[0019], [0026]; Figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to use multiple transverse support members in Sicking's movable panel frame to support the front dasher and guide impact movement between an undeflected and deflected position. The additional transverse support members would perform the same support and load-distribution function as Sicking's frame, ramp, and catch plate structures, with the predictable result of supporting the movable wall during impact and return. This closely matches In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), because that case treated duplication of a known structural feature as obvious where the duplicate feature produced only the expected increase in the same function. This rationale is supported by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., MPEP § 2143(I)(A), and MPEP § 2144(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Sicking teaches left and right front wall supports connected to the transverse front wall supports. Sicking teaches a generally rectangular frame and teaches that the first extendable hinge is attached to a side of the frame and the second extendable hinge is attached to the opposite side of the frame ([0026]; Figs. 1-7). Under BRI, the side portions of the rectangular frame are left and right front wall supports, and the transverse portions of the frame, ramp, and catch plate connect the side portions and support the dasher. Sicking therefore teaches the claimed left and right support relationship.
It would have been obvious to provide left and right side supports at opposite ends of Sicking's transverse wall supports because a rectangular sports-board frame uses side supports to connect and strengthen transverse support members. This matches In re Japikse, and In re Kuhle because the claimed distinction is the placement of known support portions within a known frame, and the supports would continue to perform the same structural support function without changing the basic operation of Sicking's impact-absorbing wall. This rationale is supported by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., MPEP § 2143(I)(A), and MPEP § 2144(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 4, Sicking teaches a left front wall support movable with respect to the transverse front wall supports under the broad interpretation that relative movement includes sliding, pivoting, flexing, or deflecting movement during impact. Sicking teaches that adjacent panel hinges allow rotation, panel spacing changes, and pins in slots allow adjacent panels to move apart and return after impact ([0016]; Figs. 1-7). Sicking also teaches that its wall panel frame deflects, rotates relative to the see-through material, and is restored by springs, cables, ramps, and foam ([0018]-[0020], [0026]; Figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to permit one side/front support portion of Sicking's movable panel frame to move with respect to associated transverse supports to accommodate lateral deflection and panel return during impact. Sicking already teaches the known technique of relative movement between adjacent panels and support structures through hinges, slots, ramps, springs, cables, and elastomeric foam. Applying the same relative-motion technique to the claimed support relationship would have predictably produced controlled impact absorption and recovery. This matches KSR because a known technique is being applied to a known mechanical device that is ready for improvement, with the parts performing their expected functions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 5, Sicking teaches adjacent movable wall panels with edge regions that move relative to one another. Sicking states that the extendable hinges and slots allow adjacent panels "to move apart when pushed back and come back together" after impact ([0016]; Figs. 1-7). Sicking therefore identifies the same moving joint problem addressed by the claimed overlap, namely a joint between adjacent movable wall panels that changes position during impact.
Sicking does not expressly use the word "overlap" for vertically extending regions of adjacent movable walls. It would have been obvious to configure the adjacent vertically extending edge regions of Sicking's panels to overlap so that the moving joint remains covered during impact and return. Sicking itself identifies the problem of adjacent panels moving apart and combing back together, and an overlapping edge region would predictably reduce exposed gaps, edges, and pinch/catch hazards while preserving the same adjacent-panel movement. This is aligned with KSR because it applies a known gap-covering configuration to a known moving panel joint ready for improvement, with the predictable result of maintaining coverage at the joint. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking, as applied to claim 2, in view of Frazier et al. (US 20030119591 A1, "Frazier").
Regarding claim 15, Sicking teaches the wall assembly of claim 2 and teaches movable sports-board panels supported by a frame, ramp, catch plate, springs, cables, and other support structures, as discussed above ([0012]-[0020], [0026]; Figs. 1-7). However, Sicking does not expressly teach the specific track and cover/stop arrangement of claim 15.
Frazier teaches a flexible dasher board assembly with tracks and support structure. Frazier teaches a "track having a channel that is operative to hold a shielding panel," with front and rear supports, a pivot member, and an elastic member that biases the track upright and compresses when the panel is subjected to lateral force ([0014]; Figs. 2-10). Frazier further teaches a dasher board assembly having a main wall portion, a track 14 with a U-channel 16, a front support member 20, a rear support member 22, track support plates 24, and beams 23 ([0036]-[0037]; Figs. 2-6). Frazier teaches that the track and glass move inwardly under force and that the springs compress to absorb force, while the spring biases the pivot assembly back toward normal position ([0038]-[0042]; Figs. 5-6).
Frazier also teaches extension and pivot structures corresponding to the claimed portions secured in tracks by a cover forming a stop. Frazier teaches an extension member fixed to the track, elastic members between the track and support, and movement that is laterally guided and force absorbing ([0044]-[0045]; Figs. 7-10). Frazier further teaches supports, spacers, and pivot members that limit movement and maintain the movable track/support arrangement ([0039]-[0042], [0047]-[0050]; Figs. 5-10). Under BRI, these support, spacer, and retaining structures correspond to covers/stops that secure portions in tracks and limit movement.
It would have been obvious to use Frazier's track, channel, support, spacer, pivot, elastic member, and movement-limiting support arrangement with Sicking's energy absorbing sports board panels to guide the movable support portions, retain the support portions in tracks, limit travel, and return the structure after impact. Both references address flexible dasher board or sports board assemblies and reduce injury by allowing controlled movement. The KSR rationale applied is use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and applying a known track and elastic-return technique to a known movable sports board ready for improvement. KSR, supports applying known techniques to known devices where predictable results would follow. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and MPEP § 2143(I)(C)-(D).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kapsalis et al. (US 20130040745 A1, "Kapsalis").
Regarding claim 6, Sicking teaches the wall assembly and support structure of claims 1-2, as discussed above. However, Sicking does not expressly teach a shield positioned on the support assembly below a lower end of the first movable wall. Kapsalis teaches a dasher board assembly with an ice dam or ice retainer located at or adjacent the bottom area of the dasher board. Kapsalis states that an ice dam is provided at or adjacent the bottom area and that the ice dam includes a main body and a lip, with the lip underlying the dasher board and the main body underlying the frame ([0006]; Figs. 1-4). Kapsalis further teaches that the ice dam may be solid HDPE and that a kickplate may be connected to the dasher board at the bottom area ([0007]-[0008]; Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to provide Kapsalis's ice dam, lip, or kickplate shield below the lower end of Sicking's movable sports-board wall to isolate rink components from ice, protect the lower wall area, and maintain player-safe rink boundary structure. Sicking and Kapsalis both concern dasher-board or sports-board safety assemblies, and Kapsalis applies the known ice-dam and kickplate technique to the same type of rink boundary structure. This aligns with KSR because it applies a known technique to a known device in the same field to obtain the predictable result of lower-edge protection and ice isolation. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and MPEP § 2143(I)(C)-(D).
Regarding claim 7, Sicking teaches the wall assembly and Kapsalis teaches conventional upper structures for a dasher board assembly. Kapsalis teaches that the frame typically includes a conventional top bumper and conventional components for mounting transparent upper shielding panes ([0027]; Figs. 1-4). Under BRI, a top bumper is a top cover positioned on an upper end of the support assembly.
It would have been obvious to provide Kapsalis's conventional top bumper or top cover on the upper end of Sicking's sports- board support assembly to protect the upper edge, finish the support structure, and mount or interface with upper shielding. Both references concern sports-board/dasher-board assemblies, and Kapsalis's top bumper performs the same protective and interface function when applied to Sicking's wall. This aligns with KSR because a known component is being applied to a similar device in the same way, with predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claims 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McAlpine (US 6106401 A).
Regarding claim 8, Sicking teaches the movable sports-board wall assembly of claim 1, including a dasher attached to the frame on the playing surface side ([0026]; Figs. 1-7). However, Sicking does not expressly teach each wall formed of a wall panel and a fiber layer. McAlpine teaches a structural laminate for use as a dasher board. McAlpine states that the invention relates to "structural laminates for use as wall enclosures around athletic playing surfaces" and specifically to a laminate for "interconnected dasher board panels" used in hockey or skating rinks (Col. 1, lines 3-8). McAlpine further teaches a laminate comprising "a first layer of fiberglass," a "layer of rigid foam made of polyvinylchloride," bonding layers, and a second fiberglass layer (Col. 1, lines 40-50; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to form Sicking's sports-board wall panel using McAlpine's known fiberglass/PVC structural laminate because McAlpine teaches a strong, lightweight dasher board panel designed for hockey impacts. This aligns with KSR because a known wall-panel construction is being used in a similar sports-board device for the same impact resisting function. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960) supports this because the difference is selection of a known suitable material/construction for a known article of the same general type. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., MPEP § 2143(I)(C), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Sicking teaches the baseline sports-board wall and McAlpine teaches adhesive attachment of the fiber layer to the wall panel. McAlpine teaches that the first fiberglass layer is bonded to the PVC foam layer "preferably with a type of bonding glue or cement," and that the second fiberglass layer is then bonded to the exposed side of the PVC foam layer (Col. 2, lines 35-43; Fig. 1). This teaches a fiber layer adhered to the wall panel with adhesive.
It would have been obvious to adhere McAlpine's fiberglass layer to the PVC/plastic wall panel using bonding glue or cement when forming Sicking's movable sports-board wall, because adhesive bonding is the disclosed way McAlpine forms the laminate and provides predictable layer attachment. This aligns with KSR because applying a known bonding technique to a known laminate wall panel to obtain predictable result that the fiber layer is secured to the wall panel. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 14, Sicking teaches the baseline sports-board wall and McAlpine teaches a fiber-integrated wall panel. McAlpine teaches a fiberglass/PVC/fiberglass laminate in which fiberglass layers are bonded to the plastic foam wall layer (Col. 1, lines 40-50; Col. 2, lines 30-43; Fig. 1). McAlpine does not expressly teach the process phrase "insert molded into." The phrase is treated as product-by-process-type language to the extent it recites a manufacturing process rather than a distinct structure. Under MPEP § 2113 and In re Thorpe, patentability is based on the product itself unless the process imparts a patentably distinct structure. The prior art product already provides a fiber layer integrated with a plastic wall panel.
It would have been obvious to provide the fiber layer integrated into the wall panel of Sicking using McAlpine's fiberglass/PVC laminate. McAlpine's product already provides a fiber layer integrated with a plastic wall panel, and claim 14's "insert molded into" wording is process-type language unless Applicant identifies a distinct resulting structure. In In re Thorpe, the process language did not distinguish the product when the prior art product was the same or obvious from the claimed product. Here, the prior art product is a fiber-integrated wall panel, and the claimed product is at least obvious from that product. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and MPEP § 2113.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking in view of McAlpine, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kapsalis.
Regarding claim 9, Sicking teaches the sports-board wall and McAlpine teaches the wall formed of a wall panel and fiber layer as discussed for claim 8. McAlpine already teaches a PVC foam layer, which is a plastic material (Col. 1, lines 40-50; Fig. 1). Kapsalis further teaches conventional dasher boards made of plastic materials, stating that dasher boards may be made of "HDPE, thermoplastic elastomer polyolefin, fiberglass, plywood, or other substantially rigid" material ([0025]; Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to use a plastic wall panel in the Sicking and McAlpine sports-board wall because McAlpine and Kapsalis both teach plastic materials suitable for dasher board panels. This aligns with In re Leshin because that case involved selecting a known plastic for an article of a type already made from plastics. Here, PVC and HDPE-type materials are known for dasher-board wall structures, and the selected plastic would predictably provide durability and impact performance. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., In re Leshin, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Sicking teaches the sports-board wall and Kapsalis expressly teaches polyethylene or HDPE materials. Kapsalis teaches that the ice dam may have a unitary construction such as solid HDPE or separable elements of steel or HDPE ([0007]; Figs. 1-4), and also lists HDPE as a conventional material for dasher boards ([0025]; Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to use polyethylene or high density polyethylene for the wall panel in the Sicking and McAlpine sports-board wall because Kapsalis identifies HDPE as a known dasher-board material. This aligns with In re Leshin because that case involved selecting a known suitable plastic for a known article type, not a new structural principle. Here, HDPE-type materials are known for dasher-board wall structures, and the selected plastic would predictably provide a durable, substantially rigid rink-wall panel material. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., In re Leshin, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking in view of McAlpine and further in view of Kapsalis, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Golden (US 20020009582 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sicking teaches the sports-board wall and McAlpine teaches the fiber-layer wall panel as discussed for claim 8, and Kapsalis teaches the plastic wall panel as discussed for claim 9. However, Sicking, McAlpine and Kapsalis do not expressly teach a wall panel formed as a matrix or honeycomb configuration. Golden teaches reinforcing sheets for sheet plastic structures and teaches reinforcing layers for localized, lightweight reinforcement ([0001]-[0002]; Figs. 1-5). Golden teaches that a suitable reinforcing layer is a honeycomb structure and that such structures include a perforated honeycomb member with columns defining open-ended cell apertures ([0030]; Figs. 3-5). Golden further teaches that the cells may be "hexagonal, triangular, square, polyhedral or other convenient shapes" ([0031]; Figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to use Golden's matrix or honeycomb reinforcing configuration in the Kapsalis plastic wall panel and McAlpine fiber-layer wall panel used with Sicking's sports-board wall to improve stiffness, strength, weight efficiency, and impact resistance. Golden teaches the known honeycomb reinforcement technique, Kapsalis identifies plastic wall panels as known dasher-board materials, and the combined wall panel is a known impact-resistant sports-wall panel ready for structural reinforcement. This aligns with KSR because it applies a known reinforcement technique to a known wall-panel product, with the predictable result of increased stiffness and weight-efficient reinforcement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., and MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sicking in view of McAlpine and further in view of Kapsalis, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Golden (US 20020009582 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sicking teaches the sports-board wall and McAlpine teaches the fiber-layer wall panel as discussed above. Golden teaches the claimed or overlapping thickness. Golden teaches that preferred reinforcing materials include glass, polyamide resin, polypropylene resin, carbon, and woven glass fabrics, and that "[t]he reinforcing layer preferably has a thickness of 0.003 inch to 0.050 inch" ([0028]; Figs. 1-5). Golden also teaches that the entire reinforcing sheet preferably has a total thickness of "0.04 inch to 0.10 inch“ ([0033]; Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to use Golden's disclosed reinforcing-layer thickness in the McAlpine fiber-layer wall panel used with Sicking's sports-board wall because the thickness is suitable for reinforcement and conforms to the panel. The claimed 0.04 inch to 0.10 inch range overlaps Golden's reinforcing-layer range at 0.04 inch to 0.050 inch, and Golden's reinforcing sheet thickness matches the claimed range. This aligns with In re Wertheim and In re Woodruff because these cases involved claimed ranges that overlapped or were inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. Applicant has not shown that the claimed thickness range is critical or produces unexpected results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and MPEP § 2145.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights