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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 03/16/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below. To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
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 1-3, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns (20090312125) in view of Phelan (20170165548) and Hisle (20100151975).
Regarding claim 1, Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches a handgrip for a baseball/softball bat (Para. 0033) comprising, an annular hand positioning shaft (10, 100) (Para. 0033) configured to be secured around a handle of the baseball/softball bat between a knob and a barrel of the baseball/softball bat (Para. 0034), the hand positioning shaft having a longitudinal axis, a bottom end portion, and an upper end portion, the bottom end portion spaced from the upper end portion along the longitudinal axis (See fig. 1-8); an upper hand receiving portion, a lower hand receiving portion spaced from the upper hand receiving portion along the longitudinal axis, the upper hand receiving portion comprising a plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis and the lower hand receiving portion comprising a plurality of lower axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis, wherein the annular hand positioning shaft is configured to receive an upper hand of a batter in the upper hand receiving portion and a lower hand of a batter in the lower hand (Para. 0044) receiving portion such that: (i) the upper and lower axial finger positioning ribs respectively support fingers of the upper hand and the lower hand at predefined locations along the longitudinal axis of the hand positioning shaft (Para. 0044); and (ii) the hand positioning shaft supports the upper hand and the lower hand of the batter at a predefined relative circumferential grip position (Para. 0044); and wherein the bottom end portion of the hand positioning shaft defines an axe handle base (Fig. 1, Part No. 24; Para. 0044) (Fig. , Part No. 124; Para. 0044) below the lower hand receiving portion, the axe handle base comprising an upper domed surface (See fig. 2-3), the upper domed surface having an apex curve (See fig. 2-3) (also see annotated fig. 1 in this document) in a center plane extending along the longitudinal axis, and a hand separation ridge (30) between the lower hand receiving portion and the upper hand receiving portion (Para. 0047).
Kearns does not teach the axe handle base comprising an upper domed surface protruding radially outward with respect to an adjacent segment of the hand positioning shaft above the upper domed surface, the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane, the apex curve being asymmetrical in the center plane on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis, the hand separation ridge comprising a concave upper side, a concave lower side, and a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together, the upper side of the hand separation ridge defining a lower end of the upper hand receiving portion and the lower side of the hand separation ridge defining an upper end of the lower hand receiving portion.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the axe handle base comprising an upper domed surface protruding radially outward with respect to an adjacent segment of the hand positioning shaft above the upper domed surface, the upper domed surface having an apex curve in a center plane extending along the longitudinal axis, the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane, the apex curve being asymmetrical in the center plane on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis” is directed to the shape of the claimed “axe handle base”. It is noted that the claimed “axe handle base” and the axe handle base of the prior art of Kearns are both used to support a hand of a user when using the handgrip apparatus. Changing the shape of the axe handle base of the prior art of Kearns would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). It is noted that applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide anu criticality for the claimed shape and the claimed shape serves to support a hand of a user. As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Phelan is also being used to teach the recited limitation.
Phelan (Figures 1-23) teaches the axe handle base comprising an upper domed surface (Fig. 4, Part No. 5.2; Para. 0087) protruding radially outward with respect to an adjacent segment of the hand positioning shaft above the upper domed surface (See fig. 4-5), the upper domed surface having an apex curve (See fig. 4; Para. 0087) (also see annotated fig. 2 in this document) in a center plane extending along the longitudinal axis, the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane (See fig. 4), the apex curve being asymmetrical in the center plane on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis (See fig. 1 and 5) (Para. 0041, 0123).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the upper domed surface having an apex curve in a center plane extending along the longitudinal axis, the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane” is directed to an imaginary line that extends from one side of the handgrip to another side of the handgrip (as shown in fig. 15 of applicant’s drawings). Applicant’s specification (Para. 0042) discloses: “as shown in FIG. 15, the domed surface 58 has an apex curve 62 in a center plane CP (FIGS. 6 and 7) extending along the longitudinal axis LA. The upper domed surface 58 slopes downward from the apex curve 62 two directions as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions orthogonal to the center plane CP. As shown in FIG. 15, the apex curve 62 is asymmetrical in the center plane CP on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis LA. Because of the canted orientation of the domed surface 58, the apex curve 62 separates into a rising curve segment 64 and falling curve segment 66 on opposite sides of the central passage in which the bat handle is received.”
Hisle (Figures 1-4) teaches a hand separation ridge (Fig. 2-3. Part No. 22) comprising a concave upper side, a concave lower side, and a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together, the upper side of the hand separation ridge defining a lower end of the upper hand receiving portion and the lower side of the hand separation ridge defining an upper end of the lower hand receiving portion (See fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kearns with the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane as taught by Phelan as a means of simple substitution of one known element (the upper domed surface disclosed by Kearns) for another (the upper domed surface disclosed by Phelan) to obtain predictable results (a sports grip having an upper domed surface used to support a hand of a user) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Phelan: Fig. 1-5), and to provide Kearns with a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together as taught by Hisle as a means of using known work in one field of endeavor (sports grips) prompting variations of it (a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Kearns Reference)]
PNG
media_image2.png
1325
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Phelan Reference)]
PNG
media_image3.png
1347
945
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches an upper imaginary rib center line extends parallel to the longitudinal axis through circumferential midpoints of the upper axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) and a lower imaginary rib center line extends parallel to the longitudinal axis through circumferential midpoints of the lower axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044), wherein the upper imaginary rib center line is circumferentially spaced apart from the lower imaginary rib center line about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle.
Kearns does not teach the upper imaginary rib center line is circumferentially spaced apart from the lower imaginary rib center line about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 25° to 50°.
It is noted that the prior art of Kearns teaches the upper imaginary rib center line is circumferentially spaced apart from the lower imaginary rib center line about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle (though a specific angle is not disclosed). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kearns with an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 25° to 50° as a means of finding optimum or workable by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches a center plane imaginary line in the center plane and oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis intersects an uppermost point along the apex curve and wherein a lower imaginary rib center line extends parallel to the longitudinal axis through circumferential midpoints of the lower axial finger positioning ribs, the center plane imaginary line being circumferentially offset from the lower imaginary rib center line about the longitudinal axis (See figures 1-10).
Kearns does not teach the center plane imaginary line being circumferentially offset from the lower imaginary rib center line about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle less than 20°.
It is noted that the prior art of Kearns teaches the center plane imaginary line being circumferentially offset from the lower imaginary rib center line about the longitudinal axis (though a offset value is not disclosed). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kearns with the center plane imaginary line being circumferentially offset from the lower imaginary rib center line about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle less than 20°as a means of finding optimum or workable by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches the lower hand receiving portion has exactly three lower axial finger positioning ribs (See fig. 1-8, Part No. 24/124) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis between the axe handle base and the lower side of the hand separation ridge and the upper hand receiving portion has exactly three upper axial finger positioning ribs (See fig. 1-8, Part No. 24/124) above the upper side of the hand separation ridge.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches the upper domed surface consists of a first half on one side of the center plane and a second half on an opposite side of the center plane (See fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches the upper domed surface consists of a first half on one side of the center plane and a second half on an opposite side of the center plane (See fig. 2-3).
The modified Kearns does not teach the entire first half slopes downward from the apex curve in the first direction and the entire second half slopes downward from the apex curve in the second direction.
Phelan (Figures 1-23) teaches the entire first half slopes downward from the apex curve in the first direction and the entire second half slopes downward from the apex curve in the second direction (See fig. 4) (Para. 0087).
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 Kearns with the entire first half slopes downward from the apex curve in the first direction as taught by Phelan as a means of simple substitution of one known element (the upper domed surface disclosed by Kearns) for another (the upper domed surface disclosed by Phelan) to obtain predictable results (a sports grip having an upper domed surface used to support a hand of a user) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Phelan: Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches the upper domed surface consists of a first half on one side of the center plane and a second half on an opposite side of the center plane (See fig. 2-3).
The modified Kearns does not teach in any plane perpendicular to the center plane at a location where the apex curve lies on the domed surface, the apex curve is at the highest point along the domed surface in the respective plane (See fig. 2-3).
Phelan (Figures 1-23) teaches in any plane perpendicular to the center plane at a location where the apex curve lies on the domed surface, the apex curve is at the highest point along the domed surface in the respective plane (See fig. 4) (Para. 0087).
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 Kearns with the apex curve is at the highest point along the domed surface in the respective plane as taught by Phelan as a means of simple substitution of one known element (the upper domed surface disclosed by Kearns) for another (the upper domed surface disclosed by Phelan) to obtain predictable results (a sports grip having an upper domed surface used to support a hand of a user) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Phelan: Fig. 1-5).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns in view of Phelan and Bleecker (20070254753).
Regarding claim 5, Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches a handgrip for a baseball/softball bat (Para. 0033) comprising: an annular hand positioning shaft (10, 100) (Para. 0033) configured to be secured around a handle of the baseball/softball bat between a knob and a barrel of the baseball/softball bat (Para. 0034), the hand positioning shaft having a longitudinal axis, a bottom end portion, and an upper end portion, the bottom end portion spaced from the upper end portion along the longitudinal axis (See fig. 1-8); wherein the bottom end portion of the hand positioning shaft defines an axe handle base (Fig. 1, Part No. 24; Para. 0044) (Fig. , Part No. 124; Para. 0044), the axe handle base comprising an upper domed surface protruding radially outward with respect to an adjacent segment of the hand positioning shaft above the upper domed surface, the upper domed surface having an apex curve (see annotated Fig. 1 in this document) in a center plane extending along the longitudinal axis (See annotated Fig. 1 in this document).
Kearns does not teach an upper palm pad configured to support a portion of a palm of the upper hand and a lower palm pad configured to support a portion of a palm of the lower hand, lower palm pad being spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad, the lower palm pad being circumferentially offset about the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad, the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane, the apex curve being asymmetrical in the center plane on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the axe handle base comprising an upper domed surface protruding radially outward with respect to an adjacent segment of the hand positioning shaft above the upper domed surface, the upper domed surface having an apex curve in a center plane extending along the longitudinal axis, the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane, the apex curve being asymmetrical in the center plane on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis” is directed to the shape of the claimed “axe handle base”. Changing the shape of the axe handle base of the prior art of Kearns would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). It is noted that applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide anu criticality for the claimed shape and the claimed shape serves to support a hand of a user. As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Phelan is also being used to teach the recited limitation.
Bleecker (Figures 1-5) teaches an upper palm pad (20) (Para. 0031) configured to support a portion of a palm of the upper hand and a lower palm pad (22) (Para. 0031) configured to support a portion of a palm of the lower hand, lower palm pad being spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad (See fig. 2), the lower palm pad being circumferentially offset about the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad (Para. 0033) (See fig. 3), and an axe handle base (See fig. 1-2) below the lower palm pad.
Phelan (Figures 1-23) teaches the upper domed surface (Fig. 4, Part No. 5.2; Para. 0087) sloping downward from the apex curve(see annotated Fig. 2 in this document) as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane (See fig. 4), the apex curve being asymmetrical in the center plane on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis (See fig. 1 and 5) (Para. 0041, 0123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kearns with an upper palm pad as taught by Bleecker as a means of providing a grip with protrusions that provide tactile information to the hands for proper knuckle alignment which facilitates proper wrist roll during swinging of a bat (Bleecker: Para. 0031), and to provide Kearns with the upper domed surface sloping downward from the apex curve as the upper domed surface extends in opposite first and second directions from the center plane as taught by Phelan as a means of simple substitution of one known element (the upper domed surface disclosed by Kearns) for another (the upper domed surface disclosed by Phelan) to obtain predictable results (a sports grip having an upper domed surface used to support a hand of a user) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (See Phelan: Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches an annular hand positioning shaft (10, 100) (Para. 0033) configured to be secured around a handle of the baseball/softball bat between a knob and a barrel of the baseball/softball bat (Para. 0034).
The modified Kearns does not teach each of the upper and lower palm pads comprises an ellipsoid surface protruding radially outward with respect to an adjacent segment of the hand positioning shaft, each ellipsoid surface each comprise an imaginary pad center line parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Bleecker (Figures 1-5) teaches each of the upper (20) (Para. 0031) and lower (22) (Para. 0031) palm pads comprises an ellipsoid surface (See fig. 1-2) protruding radially outward with respect to an adjacent segment of the hand positioning shaft, each ellipsoid surface each comprise an imaginary pad center line parallel to the longitudinal axis.
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 Kearns with each of the upper and lower palm pads comprises an ellipsoid surface as taught by Bleecker as a means of providing a grip with protrusions that provide tactile information to the hands for proper knuckle alignment which facilitates proper wrist roll during swinging of a bat (Bleecker: Para. 0031).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches an annular hand positioning shaft (10, 100) (Para. 0033) configured to be secured around a handle of the baseball/softball bat between a knob and a barrel of the baseball/softball bat (Para. 0034).
The modified Kearns does not teach each ellipsoid surface is symmetrical about its imaginary pad center line.
Bleecker (Figures 1-5) teaches upper (20) (Para. 0031) and lower (22) (Para. 0031) palm pads (See fig. 1-2).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “each ellipsoid surface is symmetrical about its imaginary pad center line” is directed to the shape of the claimed pads. Changing the shape of the pads would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill In the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
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 Kearns with upper and lower palm pads as taught by Bleecker as a means of providing a grip with protrusions that provide tactile information to the hands for proper knuckle alignment which facilitates proper wrist roll during swinging of a bat (Bleecker: Para. 0031).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches an annular hand positioning shaft (10, 100) (Para. 0033) configured to be secured around a handle of the baseball/softball bat between a knob and a barrel of the baseball/softball bat (Para. 0034).
The modified Kearns does not teach the imaginary pad center lines are circumferentially offset from each other about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 45° to 75°.
Bleecker (Figures 1-5) teaches the imaginary pad center lines are circumferentially offset from each other about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle (though a specific angle is not disclosed).
It is noted that the prior art of Bleeker teaches the imaginary pad center lines are circumferentially offset from each other about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle (though a specific angle is not disclosed). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to provide Bleecker with an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 45° to 75° as a means of finding optimum or workable by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 Kearns with an upper and lower pad as taught by Bleecker as a means of providing a grip with protrusions that provide tactile information to the hands for proper knuckle alignment which facilitates proper wrist roll during swinging of a bat (Bleecker: Para. 0031).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches the hand positioning shaft further comprises a plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis and wherein an upper imaginary rib center line extends parallel to the longitudinal axis through circumferential midpoints of the upper axial finger positioning ribs.
The modified Kearns does not teach the upper imaginary rib center line is offset from the imaginary pad center line the ellipsoidal surface of the upper palm pad circumferentially about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 150° to 180°.
Bleecker (Figures 1-5) teaches the upper imaginary rib (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 16) center line is offset from the imaginary pad center line the ellipsoidal surface of the upper palm pad (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 20) circumferentially about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 150° to 180° (See fig. 1-2).
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 Kearns with the upper imaginary rib center line is offset from the ellipsoidal surface of the upper palm pad as taught by Bleecker as a means of providing a grip with protrusions that provide tactile information to the hands for proper knuckle alignment which facilitates proper wrist roll during swinging of a bat (Bleecker: Para. 0031).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches the hand positioning shaft further comprises a plurality of lower axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis and wherein a lower imaginary rib center line extends parallel to the longitudinal axis through circumferential midpoints of the lower axial finger positioning ribs.
The modified Kearns does not teach the lower imaginary rib center line is offset from the imaginary pad center line the ellipsoidal surface of the lower palm pad circumferentially about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 150° to 180°.
Bleecker (Figures 1-5) teaches the lower imaginary rib (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 18) center line is offset from the imaginary pad center line the ellipsoidal surface of the lower palm pad (22) circumferentially about the longitudinal axis by an offset angle in an inclusive range of from 150° to 180° (See fig. 1-2).
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 Kearns with the lower imaginary rib center line is offset from the imaginary pad center line of the lower palm pad as taught by Bleecker as a means of providing a grip with protrusions that provide tactile information to the hands for proper knuckle alignment which facilitates proper wrist roll during swinging of a bat (Bleecker: Para. 0031).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns in view of Bleecker and Hisle.
Regarding claim 15, Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches a handgrip for a baseball/softball bat (Para. 0033) comprising; an annular hand positioning shaft (10, 100) (Para. 0033) configured to be secured around a handle of the baseball/softball bat between a knob and a barrel of the baseball/softball bat (Para. 0034), the hand positioning shaft having a longitudinal axis, a bottom end portion, and an upper end portion, the bottom end portion spaced from the upper end portion along the longitudinal axis (See fig. 1-8); an upper hand receiving portion, a lower hand receiving portion spaced from the upper hand receiving portion along the longitudinal axis, the upper hand receiving portion comprising a plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis and the lower hand receiving portion comprising a plurality of lower axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis, wherein the annular hand positioning shaft is configured to receive an upper hand of a batter in the upper hand receiving portion and a lower hand of a batter in the lower hand receiving portion (Para. 0044) (Para. 0044) such that:(i) the upper and lower axial finger positioning ribs respectively support fingers of the upper hand and the lower hand at predefined locations along the longitudinal axis of the hand positioning shaft (Para. 0044); and (ii) the hand positioning shaft supports the upper hand and the lower hand of the batter at a predefined relative circumferential grip position (Para. 0044), wherein an uppermost one of the plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs (24, 124) has a concave upper side, a concave lower side, wherein the uppermost one of the plurality of upper axial fiber positioning ribs has a circumferential midpoint along the vertex (See fig. 1-8), wherein an upper imaginary center rib center line extends radially from the longitudinal axis to the circumferential midpoint of the uppermost one of the plurality of ribs (See fig. 1-8).
Kearns does not teach an upper palm pad configured to support a portion of a palm of the upper hand and a lower palm pad configured to support a portion of a palm of the lower hand, lower palm pad being spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad, the lower palm pad being circumferentially offset about the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad; wherein an uppermost one of the plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs has a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together, wherein a first radial dimension, measured perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis to a radially outermost point of the upper palm pad, is less than a second radial dimension, measured perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis to a radially outermost point on the vertex of the uppermost one of the plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs.
Bleecker (Figures 1-5) teaches an upper palm pad (20) (Para. 0031) configured to support a portion of a palm of the upper hand and a lower palm pad (22) (Para. 0031) configured to support a portion of a palm of the lower hand, lower palm pad being spaced apart along the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad (See fig. 2), the lower palm pad being circumferentially offset about the longitudinal axis from the upper palm pad (Para. 0033) (See fig. 3).
Hisle (Figures 1-4) teaches an uppermost one of the plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs has a concave upper side, a concave lower side, and a single vertex (See fig. 2) between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together (See fig. 2).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “a first radial dimension, measured perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis to a radially outermost point of the upper palm pad, is less than a second radial dimension, measured perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis to a radially outermost point on the vertex of the uppermost one of the plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs” is directed to the dimensions of the palm pad relative to the dimension of the finger positioning ribs. The combination of the prior art of Kearns, Hisle, and Bleecker teach providing a handgrip with palm pads (i.e. providing Kearns with palm pads as taught by Bleecker). Changing the dimensions of the palm pads and/or the finger positioning ribs amounts to finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the combination of Kearns, Hisle, and Bleecker with a first radial dimension is less than a second radial dimension as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Additionally, changing size of the palm pads and/or finger positioning ribs of the combination of Kearns, Hisle, and Bleecker would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of changing the size of parts of the claimed apparatus (See: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kearns with an upper palm pad as taught by Bleecker as a means of providing a grip with protrusions that provide tactile information to the hands for proper knuckle alignment which facilitates proper wrist roll during swinging of a bat (Bleecker: Para. 0031), and to provide Kearns with a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together as taught by Hisle as a means of using known work in one field of endeavor (sports grips) prompting variations of it (a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearns (20090312125) in view of Hisle (20100151975).
Regarding claim 17, Kearns (Figures 1-10) teaches a handgrip for a baseball/softball bat comprising: an annular hand positioning shaft (10, 100) (Para. 0033) configured having a longitudinal axis, a bottom end portion, and an upper end portion, the bottom end portion spaced from the upper end portion along the longitudinal axis; an upper hand receiving portion, a lower hand receiving portion spaced from the upper hand receiving portion along the longitudinal axis, the upper hand receiving portion comprising a plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs (Fig. 1-8, Part No. 24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis and the lower hand receiving portion comprising a plurality of lower axial finger positioning ribs (Fig. 1-8, Part No. 24, 124) (Para. 0043-0044) spaced apart along the longitudinal axis, wherein the annular hand positioning shaft is configured to receive an upper hand of a batter in the upper hand receiving portion and a lower hand of a batter in the lower hand receiving portion such that:(i) the upper and lower axial finger positioning ribs respectively support fingers of the upper hand and the lower hand at predefined locations along the longitudinal axis of the hand positioning shaft; and(ii) the hand positioning shaft supports the upper hand and the lower hand of the batter at a predefined relative circumferential grip position; and a hand separation ridge (30) (Para. 0042, 0044) between the lower hand receiving portion and the upper hand receiving portion (Para. 0047).
Kearns does not teach the hand separation ridge comprising a concave upper side, a concave lower side, and a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together, the upper side of the hand separation ridge defining a lower end of the upper hand receiving portion and the lower side of the hand separation ridge defining an upper end of the lower hand receiving portion.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the hand separation ridge comprising a concave upper side, a concave lower side, and a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together, the upper side of the hand separation ridge defining a lower end of the upper hand receiving portion and the lower side of the hand separation ridge defining an upper end of the lower hand receiving portion” is directed to the shape of the claimed “hand separation ridge”. It is noted that Kearns discloses a hand separation ridge (30) that includes “an appropriately shaped portion of the knob 28, or any other suitable indicator of a proper position of the grip 20 with respect to the baseball bat 10” (Kearns: Para. 0044). Changing the size of the hand separation ridge of Kearns would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere design choice (See: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). As an alternative rejection, the prior art of Hisle is being used to teach the claimed shape of the “hand separation ridge”.
Hisle (Figures 1-4) teaches a hand separation ridge (Fig. 3. Part No. 22, 34) (Para. 0046-0047) comprising a concave upper side, a concave lower side, and a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together, the upper side of the hand separation ridge defining a lower end of the upper hand receiving portion and the lower side of the hand separation ridge defining an upper end of the lower hand receiving portion (See fig. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kearns with a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together as taught by Hisle as a means of using known work in one field of endeavor (sports grips) prompting variations of it (a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)) (Hisle: Para. 0046-0048).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3, 5-10, 16, and 18-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art disclosed in this non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 (directed to claims 15 and 17) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the recitation in claim 15 of “a first radial dimension, measured perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis to a radially outermost point of the upper palm pad, is less than a second radial dimension, measured perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis to a radially outermost point on the vertex of the uppermost one of the plurality of upper axial finger positioning ribs”, this is not found persuasive because claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Kearns in view of Bleecker and Hisle. It is noted that the recited limitation of claim 15 is directed to the dimensions of the palm pad relative to the dimension of the finger positioning ribs. The combination of the prior art of Kearns, Hisle, and Bleecker teach providing a handgrip with palm pads (i.e. providing Kearns with palm pads as taught by Bleecker). Changing the dimensions of the palm pads and/or the finger positioning ribs amounts to finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Additionally, changing size of the palm pads and/or finger positioning ribs of the combination of Kearns, Hisle, and Bleecker would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of changing the size of parts of the claimed apparatus (See: In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), where the court held that limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art). It is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 17 under 35 USC 103 over Kearns (20090312125) in view of Hisle (20100151975) is improper because the combination improperly modified Kearns against its intended purpose and principle of operation. Applicant argues that providing Kearns with “a hand separation ridge comprising a concave upper side, a concave lower side, and a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together, the upper side of the hand separation ridge defining a lower end of the upper hand receiving portion and the lower side of the hand separation ridge defining an upper end of the lower hand receiving portion” as taught by Hisle eliminates the spatial separation necessary for a user to achieve a desired lever arm. This is not found persuasive because the prior art of Kearns (Para. 0044) discloses: “for example, the indicating means 30 includes a graphical indicator, an appropriately shaped portion of the knob 28, or any other suitable indicator of a proper position of the grip 20 with respect to the baseball bat 10”. It is noted that Kearns discloses hand separation ridge (30) includes “an appropriately shaped portion of the knob 28, or any other suitable indicator of a proper position of the grip 20 with respect to the baseball bat 10” (Kearns: Para. 0044) so that changing the size of the hand separation ridge of Kearns (as taught by Hisle) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that 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 the instant case, it would have been obvious to provide Kearns with a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side at which the upper side and the lower side come together as taught by Hisle as a means of using known work in one field of endeavor (sports grips) prompting variations of it (a single vertex between the upper side and the lower side) for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Conclusion
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 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights