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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 4-6, 9, 18, 20, 23-29, and 34-36 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim 35 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (20170136325) in view of Davis (20150328512), Filippini (20160193793), and Morales (20130072321).
Regarding claim 35, Fox (Figures 1-6) teaches a pickleball paddle comprising: a handle (See fig. 1) (Para. 0030); and a head (See fig. 1) (Para. 0030) coupled to the handle, the head comprising an inner layer sandwiched between a first outer faceplate (102) and a second outer faceplate (103) (Para.0030), and the inner layer comprising a lattice; the lattice comprising a first cell (See fig. 2A-E) (Para. 0034) in a first region of the head, the first cell having a first opening along the first outer faceplate (See fig. 2A-E), the first opening having a first shape and a first size (See fig. 2A-E); a second cell in a second region of the head, the second cell having a second opening along the first outer faceplate (See fig. 2A-E), the second opening having a second shape and a second size, a third cell in a third region of the head (See fig. 2A-E), the third cell having a third opening along the first outer faceplate (See fig. 2A-E), the third opening having a third shape and a third size.
Fox does not teach the inner layer comprising a lattice having a strut linearly extending from the first outer face plate to the second outer face plate along a single axis that extends oblique to the first outer face plate and the second outer face plate, wherein at least portions of the handle, the inner layer, the first outer faceplate, and the second outer faceplate are part of a single integral unitary body of a single material, wherein the lattice has spatially varying geometry that produces region specific mechanical behavior, the second cell having a second opening having a second shape and second size different than the first shape and size, respectively; the third cell having a third opening having a third shape and a third size different than the first shape and first size, respectively and different than the second shape and second size, respectively.
Davis (Figures 1-16) teaches the inner layer comprising a lattice having a strut (Fig. 9, Part No. 156) (Para. 0055) linearly extending from the first outer face plate (152) to the second outer face plate (154) along a single axis that extends oblique to the first outer face plate and the second outer face plate (See fig. 9).
Filippini (Figures 1-15) teaches at least portions of the handle, the inner layer, the first outer faceplate, and the second outer faceplate are part of a single integral unitary body (Para. 0045) of a single material (Para. 0037).
Morales teaches the lattice has spatially varying geometry that produces region specific mechanical behavior (Para. 0042, 0064, 0095), lattice cells having differences in size and shape (Para. 0042, 0064, 0095).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Fox with a strut linearly extending from the first outer face plate to the second outer face plate along a single axis that extends oblique to the first outer face plate and the second outer face plate as taught by Davis as a means of providing a sporting implement with a lattice that improves the performance, strength, or feel of the implement (Davis: Abstract, Lines 1-10; Para. 0049), and to provide the modified Fox with a single integral unitary body of a single material as taught by Filippini as a means of forming a paddle as a single unitary structure of a single material (Filippini: Para. 0037, 0045),and to provide Fox with the lattice has spatially varying geometry that produces region specific mechanical behavior as taught by Morales as a means of providing a lattice of a sporting implement with varying cell size features (Morales: Para. 0042, 0064, 0095).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Fox (Figures 1-6) teaches a pickleball paddle comprising: a handle (See fig. 1) (Para. 0030); and a head (See fig. 1) (Para. 0030) coupled to the handle.
The modified Fox does not teach the lattice further comprises a second strut having a first portion extending oblique to the first outer faceplate and a second portion extending from the first portion along an axial centerline of the second portion perpendicular to the second outer face plate.
Davis (Figures 1-16) teaches the lattice further comprises a second strut (Fig. 9, Part No. 156) (Para. 0055) having a first portion extending oblique to the first outer faceplate (152) and a second portion extending from the first portion along an axial centerline of the second portion that is perpendicular to the second outer face plate (See fig. 9).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “along an axial centerline of the second portion that is perpendicular to the second outer face plate” is being interpreted to mean that the “axial centerline” is “perpendicular to the second outer face plate,” where the axial centerline is an imaginary line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Fox with a second portion extending from the first portion along an axial centerline of the second portion that is perpendicular to the second outer face plate as taught by Davis as a means of providing a sporting implement with a lattice that improves the performance, strength, or feel of the implement (Davis: Abstract, Lines 1-10; Para. 0049).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 9, 18, 20, and 23-29, and 36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior at of record (Fox (20170136325), Filippini (20160193793), Davis (20150328512), Avnery (20190054668), Taylor (20180104555), Pearson (20050113194)) does not teach the recitation in claim 6 of “a strut having different widths that vary along an axis of an axial centerline of the strut that passes through the first outer faceplate and the second outer faceplate, the strut having a middle portion having a first width, a first end portion forming one of the first fillets, having a second width greater than the first width, and connected to the first outer face plate, and a second end portion forming one of the second fillets, having a third width greater than the first width, and connected to the second outer face plate” and the recitation in claim 36 of “each of the third cells having a third volume equal to the volume and a third cell geometry with a third arrangement of struts different than the first cell geometry and the first arrangement of struts, respectively, and different than the second cell geometry and the second arrangement of struts, respectively”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 34-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights