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 01/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 21-27 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.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severa (‘316) in view Severa (‘389), Nolan (5034082), Hsu (6086489), Hagey (20100248870), and Rocchi (20160271459).
Regarding claim 26, Severa (‘316) (Figures 1-19) teaches a sports racquet extending along a longitudinal axis, the racquet comprising: a one-piece tubular frame (Col. 6, Lines 1-10) formed of a fiber composite material tube (Col. 6, Lines 1-10) including first and second end regions and a mid-region (See fig. 7-8) (Col. 5, Lines 63-67 and Col.6, Lines 1-10), the first and second end regions extending alongside each other at a handle portion (See fig. 7-9), and the mid-region forming part of a head portion (See fig. 7-9), the handle portion including a distal region, proximal region and a central region positioned between the distal and proximal regions of the handle portion (See fig. 7-9, 1-3), the central and proximal regions of the handle portion having outer surfaces that define first and second transverse cross-sectional areas (See fig. 1-3, 9-10), respectively; and a butt cap (Fig. 1, Part No. 50) (Col. 6, Lines 9-10) fixedly secured to the proximal region of the handle portion, the butt cap (Fig. 1, Part No. 50) including a proximal end wall.
Severa (‘316) does not teach the second transverse cross-sectional area being larger than the first transverse cross-sectional area, and being larger than any other longitudinal location along the distal region and the central region of the handle portion; a pallet coupled to and longitudinally extending over the central region of the handle portion but not over the proximal region of the handle portion; the butt cap including a peripheral wall, the peripheral wall having a length directly affixed to sides of the first and second end regions of the tube and extending from the proximal end wall and about the proximal region of the handle portion with less than half of the length of the peripheral wall extending over the pallet, wherein the proximal end wall of the butt cap does not extend over the pallet.
Severa (‘389) (Figures 1-6) teaches the second transverse cross-sectional area being larger than the first transverse cross-sectional area (See fig. 3; Para. 0018), a pallet (Fig. 3 and 6, Part No. 40) (Para. 0019) coupled to and longitudinally extending over the central region (38) of the handle portion but not over the proximal region of the handle portion.
Nolan (Figures 1-12) teaches the second transverse cross-sectional area (Fig. 11, Part No. 156) being larger than any other longitudinal location along the distal region and the central region of the handle portion (Col. 6, Lines 26-38).
Hsu (Figures 1-5) teaches the butt cap including a peripheral wall (Fig. 3, Part No. 3; Col. 1, Lines 18-31) (Fig. 4-5, Part No. 22; Col. 2, Lines 13-24), the peripheral wall having a length directly affixed to sides of the first and second end regions of the tube (See fig. 3) and extending from the proximal end wall and about the proximal region of the handle portion (See fig. 3-5).
Hagey (Figures 1-13) teaches less than half of the length of the peripheral wall (72) extending over the pallet (Fig. 10, Part No. 20) (Para. 0041).
Rocchi Figures 1-21) teaches the proximal end wall of the butt cap (Fig. 1, Part No. 66) (Para. 0043) does not extend over the pallet (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Severa (‘316) with a pallet coupled to and longitudinally extending over the central region as taught by Severa (‘389) as a means of providing a racket handle with an attachment located to match the player's typical hand grip location (Severa (‘389): Para. 0019), to provide Severa (‘316) with the second transverse cross-sectional area being larger than any other longitudinal location along the distal region and the central region of the handle portion as taught by Nolan as a means of providing a racket handle core with an outwardly flared butt portion sized to receive a butt cap (Nolan: Col. 6, Lines 26-38), to provide Severa (‘316) with the butt cap including a peripheral wall as taught by Hsu as a means of mounting an end cap to a rear end of a handle of a tennis racket so that the end cap absorbs shocks transferred from the racket (Hsu: Col. 1, Lines 5-6 and Lines 31-34), and to provide Severa (‘316) with less than half of the length of the peripheral wall extending over the pallet as taught by Hagey as a means of providing means for changing a length of a base portion of a racket handle (Hagey: Para. 0043), and to provide Severa (‘316) with the proximal end wall of the butt cap does not extend over the pallet as taught by Rocchi as a means of placing a pallet at an upper portion of a handle frame while placing a butt at a lower portion of the handle frame (Rocchi: Para. 0043, 0086).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Severa (‘316) (Figures 1-19) teaches a one-piece tubular frame (Col. 6, Lines 1-10).
The modified Severa (‘316) does not teach an entirety of the peripheral wall of the butt cap does not extend over the pallet.
Rocchi Figures 1-21) teaches an entirety of the peripheral wall of the butt cap (Fig. 1, Part No. 66) (Para. 0039, 0043) does not extend over the pallet (Fig. 2 and 4, Part No. 16) (Para. 0050).
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 Severa (‘316) with an entirety of the peripheral wall of the butt cap does not extend over the pallet as taught by Rocchi as a means of placing a pallet at an upper portion of a handle frame while placing a butt at a lower portion of the handle frame (Rocchi: Para. 0043, 0086).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-15, 21-25 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Severa (10328316), Severa (20030100389), Hsu (6086489), Hagey (20100248870), McCutchen (5605327), Rocchi (20160271459), Nolan (5034082)) does not teach the recitation in claim 1 of “wherein those portions of each of the first and second end regions that extend alongside each other to form the proximal region of the handle portion have a second tubular cross sectional area greater than the first tubular cross sectional area; the butt cap including a proximal end wall and a peripheral wall, the peripheral wall being directly connected to those portions of each of the first and second end regions that have the second tubular cross sectional area, the peripheral wall having a length extending from the proximal end wall and about the proximal region with less than half of the length of the peripheral wall extending over the pallet”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (directed to claims 26-27) filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (to claim 26-27) that the prior art of record does not teach the recitation in claim 26 of “a butt cap fixedly secured to the proximal region of the handle portion, the butt cap including a proximal end wall and a peripheral wall, the peripheral wall having a length directly affixed to sides of the first and second end regions of the tube and extending from the proximal end wall and about the proximal region of the handle portion with less than half of the length of the peripheral wall extending over the pallet, wherein the proximal end wall of the butt cap does not extend over the pallet” because the end cap of Hagey cannot be directly affixed to sides of any end regions of a one piece tubular frame for Hagey to work, this is not found persuasive because claim 26 (and 27) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Severa (‘316) in view Severa (‘389), Nolan (5034082), Hsu (6086489), Hagey (20100248870), and Rocchi (20160271459). Hsu teaches the butt cap including a peripheral wall (Fig. 3, Part No. 3; Col. 1, Lines 18-31) (Fig. 4-5, Part No. 22; Col. 2, Lines 13-24), the peripheral wall having a length directly affixed to sides of the first and second end regions of the tube (See fig. 3) and extending from the proximal end wall and about the proximal region of the handle portion (See fig. 3-5). It is noted that the features that applicant argues the prior art of Hagey does not teach are disclosed by the prior art of Hsu under 35 USC 103.
Applicant argues (to claim 26) that the prior art of Rocchi teaches the end cap should extend over the pallet, this is not found persuasive because claim 26 recites the limitation “the proximal end wall of the butt cap does not extend over the pallet”. Rocchi (Figures 1-21) teaches the proximal end wall of the butt cap (Fig. 1, Part No. 66) (Para. 0043) does not extend over the pallet (16). It is noted that the claimed “proximal end wall” is the bottom most wall of the end cap (as applicant’s specification discloses the ”proximal end wall” as wall 84 in applicant’s drawings). Rocchi teaches an end cap having a bottom most wall that does not extend over the pallet as claimed.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Hagey does not teach the recitation in claim 26 of “less than half of the length of the peripheral wall extending over the pallet”, this is not found persuasive because Hagey (Figures 1-13) teaches less than half of the length of the peripheral wall (72) extending over the pallet (Fig. 10, Part No. 20) (Para. 0041). As shown in figure 10B of Hagey, less than half the length of the peripheral wall extends of the pallet (20) as claimed. Applicant argues that the combination of Hagey and other references under 35 USC 103 in the rejection of claims 26-27 would make the combination improper. This is not found persuasive because the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the cited prior art are all directed to ball striking sports implements and provide some teaching, suggestion, or motivation either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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