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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 of this title, 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.
2. Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morehouse et al., US 2015/0148140 in view of Javadian et al., WO/2023036391.
Regarding claim 1, Morehouse teaches of a fencing training apparatus (See [0021]), comprising:
a detachable handle (See [0023]); and
a foam blade removably secured to the detachable handle (See Figs.3-5; [0021] and [0023]).
Morehouse is silent with respect to the foam being that of polyethylene.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Javadian teaches of foam being that of polyethylene (See Page 11 and Figs.2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Morehouse to have incorporated the teachings of Javadian for the mere benefit of having a foam that is able to maintain sufficient rigidity as well as having a soft surface (See Javadian, Page 11).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the polyethylene foam blade has a foam density of 30 kg/m^3 (See Javadian, Page 11).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 3, wherein the polyethylene foam blade has a foam density of 30 kg/m^3 (See Javadian, Page 11).
3. Claims 3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morehouse et al., US 2015/0148140 in view of Javadian et al., WO/2023036391, and in view of Schmerker, US 2020/0189129.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Morehouse and Javadian teaches of the fencing training apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the polyethylene foam blade has an is configured to threadingly engage threads of the detachable handle (See analysis of claim 1; Morehouse, [0023] screwing into the handle).
The combination is silent with respect to the blade having an internal opening for the engaging.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Schmerker teaches of the blade having an internal opening for the engaging (See [0033]-[0035] and Fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Morehouse and Javadian to have incorporated the teachings of Schmerker for the mere benefit of having a different type of engagement means for different applications.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 1, wherein the detachable handle further comprises a grip portion, a shaft portion extending from the grip portion and a plurality of external threads protruding radially outward from the shaft portion (See Schmerker, Fig.3 and [0033]-[0037]; Morehouse, Fig.3 and [0023]) and the polyethylene foam blade has an internal opening configured to threadingly engage the plurality of external threads of the detachable handle (See Schmerker, Fig.3 and [0033]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 6, wherein the detachable handle further comprises a protruding ring located between the grip portion and the shaft portion (See Schmerker, Fig.3; [0033]-[0037]), the protruding ring provides a contact surface which engages an end of the polyethylene foam blade when the shaft portion of the detachable handle is fully inserted into the polyethylene foam blade (See Schmerker, Fig.3; [0033]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 7, wherein the polyethylene foam blade has a foam density of 30 kg/m^3 (See Javadian, Page 11).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 8, wherein the grip portion is provided with a textured or knurled surface (See Schmerker, Fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 8, wherein the grip portion is provided with a textured or knurled surface (See Schmerker, Fig.3).
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morehouse et al., US 2015/0148140 in view of Javadian et al., WO/2023036391, and in view of Florea US 2013/0281217.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morehouse and Javadian teaches the fencing training apparatus as in claim 1.
The combination is silent with respect to wherein the detachable handle is formed from plastic.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Florea teaches of wherein the handle is formed from plastic (See [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Morehouse and Javadian to have incorporated the teachings of Florea for the mere benefit of providing variety of rigidness to the apparatus.
Contact
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights