Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/304,024

TENNIS RACQUET TRAINING DEVICE AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 20, 2023
Examiner
WEISS, NICHOLAS J
Art Unit
3711
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Ragland Sports LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
265 granted / 440 resolved
-9.8% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+42.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
483
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 440 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US2013/0017910A1) in view of Chausse (US6386789), and further in view of Lissner (US6636606). Regarding Claim 1, Edwards teaches a spherical member made up of a first spherical half member and a second spherical half member (Paragraph 17, FIG 1), a stem portion provided on an interior planar surface of the first spherical half member (Paragraph 18, FIG 2A, Component 107), and a quick release button provided on the second spherical half member (Paragraph 22, Component 126). Edwards also teaches a detent mechanism (Paragraph 21, FIG 3), and a motivation for adding a quick release system (Paragraph 15, “the ease of use… may be further enhanced with the inclusion of a quick release or attachment mechanism in the knob or attachment stud”). Edwards does not teach a specifically spring biased detent mechanism provided within the second spherical half member. Chausse teaches a spring biased detent mechanism (Paragraph 19). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify Edward’s quick release system by adding a spring detent mechanism as taught by Chausse, as Chausse discloses that “Ball type locking pins are used in many different applications where two elements are to be releasably secured together” (Paragraph 4), and his “ball type locking pins” include spring mechanisms. Edwards also does not teach an annular lip provided on the second spherical half member and surrounding said quick release button. Lissner teaches an annual lip for protecting against unintentional activation of a button (Claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify Edward’s quick release system by adding an annular lip as taught by Lissner, as it is common knowledge that adding a raised edge can prevent the accidental depression of a button. Regarding Claim 2, Edwards teaches a stem portion with an annular shoulder portion thereabout (Paragraph 21, Component 107). Regarding Claim 3, Chausse teaches a stem portion is provided with an enlarged head (FIG 4). Regarding Claim 4, Chausse teaches the spring biased detent mechanism is provided with a slidable sleeve having an inner sleeve shoulder portion (Paragraph 25, Components 139 and 140). Regarding Claim 5, Chausse teaches the inner sleeve shoulder portion engages a plurality of spherical elements (Paragraph 6, FIG 4). Regarding Claim 6, Chausse teaches the slidable sleeve is provided with an annular recess to selectively receive a plurality of spherical elements (Paragraph 11, FIG 18 and 19). Regarding Claim 7, Edwards teaches the tennis racquet training device… comprising a plurality of weights, wherein the plurality of weights is adjustable (Paragraph 20, Component 105). Regarding Claim 8, a tennis racquet having a grid of strings is inherent both to the construction of a tennis racquet and its place with a tennis racquet training device. Edwards teaches the racquet training device is releasably secured to the racquet (Paragraph 7). All other limitations of this claim were addressed in Paragraph 5 of this non-final rejection. Regarding Claim 9, Edwards teaches the stem portion of the first spherical half member is secured through the grid of strings, and wherein the second spherical half member having the spring biased detent mechanism is mounted on the stem portion of the first spherical half member (Paragraph 7). Regarding Claim 10, Edwards teaches a quick release button (Paragraph 21, FIG 3), a stem portion and a receiving portion (Paragraph 18, FIG 2A, Component 107), and the ability to put a device around the strings of a tennis racquet (Paragraph 7). Edwards’ device is capable of being placed at different positions on the tennis racquet. The method steps outlined in Claim 10 naturally and obviously occur when reading Edwards in view of Chausse and further in view of Lissner. For example, after the spherical elements are unlocked with the press release button being actuated, a user would inherently pull the members apart to attach the spherical members to the strings of a racquet. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE FLORENCIA NERENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-9599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5. 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. /R.F.N./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 20, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 03, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12485201
Adhesive For An Absorbent Article
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent 12465530
ELASTIC MEMBER AND DISPOSABLE WEARING ARTICLE INCLUDING ELASTIC MEMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12447041
A COLLECTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 21, 2025
Patent 11389573
Ear Water Suction Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 19, 2022
Patent 10799060
BREW BASKET FOR AUTOMATED BEVERAGE BREWING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2020
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 440 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month