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 .
Claims 1-5 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to include proper cross hatching for the various sectioned components. For example, each layer of the invention as depicted in Figure 2 indicates that the material from which it is made is metal. See MPEP 608.02 (IX).
Furthermore, the drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The present disclosure describes,” etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
At the outset, it should be noted that claim 1 sets forth a “covering” that has an expressed intended use of “for a PEAK racket, applied to a PEAK racket”. Thus, claim 1 is drawn solely to the subcombination of the covering and the PEAK racket is not an element of the claim. However, the claim then seeks to define the covering based on the features of the PEAK racket (e.g. “the PEAK racket includes a panel”), as well as recite positive interaction with the PEAK racket (e.g., “is detachably attached and fastened to a surface of the panel”). Accordingly, it is unclear as to whether the claims are drawn to the combination or just the subcombination. For this Office action only, Examiner will presume that the subcombination is being claimed. However, Applicants should take note that the positive inclusion of what had been previously only inferentially referred to clearly creates the ambiguity as indicated above with regard to what actually is being required by the claims. Moreover, if the PEAK racket is not an element of the covering, how can details of such PEAK racket constitute a limitation of the covering?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bicanic et al (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0181313).
1. Bicanic et al disclose a covering for a PEAK racket, applied to a PEAK racket (Fig 2), comprising
a covering body (102), wherein the PEAK racket includes a panel (204), and
the covering body is detachably attached and fastened to a surface of the panel (Par. 0054: “the surface plate 102 may be configured to be removably attached to a core portion 204”).
2. Bicanic et al disclose the covering for a PEAK racket according to claim 1, wherein the covering body is a carbon fiber plate (Par. 0053: “the replaceable pickleball surface may include a carbon fiber “surface sheet” “) or a glass fiber plate, and an outer lateral surface of the covering body is a smooth surface or a frosted surface (“textured surface”).
4. Bicanic et al disclose the covering for a PEAK racket according to claim 1, wherein the covering body is made of fabric (Par. 0054 “the at least one layer of material 302 may include a layer of carbon fiber weave”; Examiner notes that the definition of “fabric” according to dictionary.com is “a cloth made by weaving, knitting, or felting fibers”. Therefore, Examiner considers the woven carbon fibers constitutes a fabric by definition) or leather.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bicanic et al in view of Liu (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0123308).
3 and 5. Bicanic et al covering fastened on a panel of a PEAK racket via an adhesive (Abstract) and otherwise significantly as claimed, but do not explicitly disclose a sound-absorbing cotton being fastened to an inner lateral surface of the covering body.
Liu discloses a similar PEAK racket having multiple layers adhered to a core of the racket. More specifically, Liu disclose a silencing layer formed from cotton being adhered to the core portion on an inner surface of the silencing layer and to a carbon fiber panel on an outer surface of the silencing layer to increase the silencing functionality (Abstract and Par. 0019-0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the covering of Bicanic et al to include the silencing layer made of cotton as taught by Liu between the core and carbon fiber layer of Bicanic et al to effectively reduce the amount of noise created when the racket strikes a ball.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nygren and Filippinni both disclose similar pickleball rackets having removable coverings. Guttman teaches a similar pickleball racket have multiple layers, one of those layers including cotton.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)272-8297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7a-4:30p MST.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/JOSHUA T KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784 1/22/22026