DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Affidavit and Second Non-Final Rejection
In the Non-Final Rejection dated 6/3/2025, the examiner cited a YouTube video by Ed Ju as prior art.
On 12/03/2025, applicant filed an affidavit saying that Ed Ju obtained the subject matter disclosed in that video directly or indirectly from Garrett Gosselin, the inventor of the present application. In arguments dated 12/3/2025, applicant argues that the Ed Ju video cannot therefore be used as prior art.
In this current office action, the examiner does not use the Ed Ju video, and this action is thus a second Non-Final Rejection.
Notes on Prior Art
In this office action, the examiner cites prior art found on the internet.
The examiner cites a webpage by a company called “Powertec”. This is the same “Powertec” refence cited in the earlier Non-Final Rejection dated 6/3/2025.
The examiner cites a YouTube video by YouTube account “BodybyPBLOL”, wherein the video is titled “CRBN Paddle eraser? Or this instead!? Clean with this, it works!!” The video was published on YouTube on December 13, 2022, and the video is about 55 seconds long. The examiner has attached an “Appendix 2” to this office action, wherein the “Appendix 2” includes a transcription (made by the examiner) of the monologue from the video and includes screenshots from the video.
The examiner also cites a post from insideden.com, wherein the title of the post is “CLEAN YOUR PADDLE”, wherein the author of the post is Stacie Townsend, and wherein the publication date of the post is 9/19/2022. The post can be accessed at the following URL: https://insideden.com/pickleball-blog/clean-your-paddle/
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “CRBN Paddle eraser? Or this instead!? Clean with this, it works!!” YouTube video by “BodybyPBLOL” in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler.
With regard to claim 12, BodybyPBLOL teaches that a “grip-tape cleaner and belt-sander cleaner” can successfully be used to clean pickleball paddle, and this cleaner held by BodybyPBLOL is a stick of material.
BodybyPBLOL does not teach the material of the cleaner stick.
Powertec teaches a cleaning stick made of rubber, wherein the cleaning stick can successfully be used to clean “skateboard grip tape” and sanding surfaces (such as a “sanding belts”, “disc sanders”, and “drum sanders”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of BodybyPBLOL by using the rubber cleaning stick of Powertec to perform the cleaning method of BodybyPBLOL. BodybyPBLOL is silent about the material of the cleaner stick, but motivation for performing the modification was provided by Powertec, who teaches that their rubber cleaning stick is suitable for cleaning “skateboard grip tape” and sanding surfaces.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec does not explicitly teach that the rubber cleaning stick performs the cleaning of the paddle by moving the cleaning stick on the paddle surface while there is contact force between the cleaning stick and the paddle surface. However, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec by performing the cleaning by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned paddle surface while moving the cleaning stick relative to said surface. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, shore A hardness value, and density value of the rubber of the cleaning stick.
Wechsler provides evidence that a rubber consumer product can successfully be made with a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35 (Par. 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec such that the rubber stick has a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35. The rubber cleaning stick of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec is a rubber consumer product, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wechsler, who provides evidence that a rubber consumer product can successfully be made with a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35.
With regard to claim 20, the combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler teaches having the rubber cleaning stick made of natural rubber (see the Powertec reference).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “CRBN Paddle eraser? Or this instead!? Clean with this, it works!!” YouTube video by “BodybyPBLOL” in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021.
With regard to claims 13 and 14, BodybyPBLOL teaches that a “grip-tape cleaner and belt-sander cleaner” can successfully be used to clean pickleball paddle, and this cleaner held by BodybyPBLOL is a stick of material.
BodybyPBLOL does not teach the material of the cleaner stick.
Powertec teaches a cleaning stick made of natural rubber, wherein the cleaning stick can successfully be used to clean “skateboard grip tape” and sanding surfaces (such as a “sanding belts”, “disc sanders”, and “drum sanders”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of BodybyPBLOL by using the natural rubber cleaning stick of Powertec to perform the cleaning method of BodybyPBLOL. BodybyPBLOL is silent about the material of the cleaner stick, but motivation for performing the modification was provided by Powertec, who teaches that their natural rubber cleaning stick is suitable for cleaning “skateboard grip tape” and sanding surfaces.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec does not explicitly teach that the rubber cleaning stick performs the cleaning of the paddle by moving the cleaning stick on the paddle surface while there is contact force between the cleaning stick and the paddle surface. However, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec by performing the cleaning by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned paddle surface while moving the cleaning stick relative to said surface. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom.
With regard to claim 15, the combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec does not teach that the cleaning rubber has the specific dimensions recited by claim 15. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Size/Proportion and Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of BodybyPBLO in view of Powertec such that the cleaning rubber has such dimensions, as the cleaning rubber could still successfully perform its cleaning role while having such dimensions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “CRBN Paddle eraser? Or this instead!? Clean with this, it works!!” YouTube video by “BodybyPBLOL” in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “CRBN Paddle eraser? Or this instead!? Clean with this, it works!!” YouTube video by “BodybyPBLOL” in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and further as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the tensile strength value and elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and tensile strength is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the tensile strength of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the tensile strength of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of stress the material can endure before failure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “CRBN Paddle eraser? Or this instead!? Clean with this, it works!!” YouTube video by “BodybyPBLOL” in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and further as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 18, the combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the tensile strength value and elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and tensile strength is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the tensile strength of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the tensile strength of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and elongation-at-break is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the elongation-at-break of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the elongation-at-break of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “CRBN Paddle eraser? Or this instead!? Clean with this, it works!!” YouTube video by “BodybyPBLOL” in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and further as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 19, in the developed combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler, the rubber cleaning stick has a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35, and this range of 30-35 is considered to rendered applicant’s range of “about 32 to about 36” obvious due to the overlap of ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. In this developed combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle, the density range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 is considered to render applicant’s range of “about 0.7 to about 1.0 g/cm3” obvious due to the overlap of ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the tensile strength value and elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and tensile strength is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the tensile strength of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the tensile strength of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and elongation-at-break is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the elongation-at-break of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the elongation-at-break of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
The combination of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle does not teach that the cleaning rubber has the specific dimensions recited by claim 19. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Size/Proportion and Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of BodybyPBLOL in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle such that the cleaning rubber has such dimensions, as the cleaning rubber could still successfully perform its cleaning role while having such dimensions.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the post “CLEAN YOUR PADDLE” by Townsend on https://insideden.com/pickleball-blog/clean-your-paddle/ as evidenced by U.S. 2024/0189679 by Davis in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler.
With regard to claim 12, Townsend teaches that a pickleball paddle “can become quite dirty”. Townsend teaches that the grit of a pickleball can capture dirt and that such dirt makes the paddle “smooth and less effective at putting spin on the pickleball”. Townsend teaches that a pickleball paddle should therefore be cleaned.
Townsend writes about “the grit of your pickleball paddle”, but doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by “grit”. As discussed, Townsend does teach that as a paddle becomes dirty, it becomes “smooth and less effective at putting spin on the pickleball”. Townsend doesn’t teach performing the cleaning with a cleaning device comprising one or more of the properties (“a” through “d”) listed in claim 12.
Davis provides evidences that, in the art of pickleball paddles, a rough exterior texture is what allows spin is to be put onto a ball (Par. 0062).
Powertec teaches a cleaning stick made of rubber, wherein the cleaning stick can successfully be used to clean rough surfaces such as “skateboard grip tape” and sanding surfaces (such as a “sanding belts”, “disc sanders”, and “drum sanders”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend by using a rubber cleaning stick of the type taught by Powertec to clean the rough exterior texture of a pickleball paddle. Davis provides evidences that, in the art of pickleball paddles, a rough exterior texture is what allows spin is to be put onto a ball. Townsend teaches that it is desirable to clean a pickleball paddle in order to retain the paddle’s ability to put spin on a ball, and motivation for using the rubber cleaning stick of Powertec was provided by Powertec, who teaches that their rubber cleaning stick is effective at cleaning rough surfaces.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec does not explicitly teach that the rubber cleaning stick performs the cleaning of the paddle by moving the cleaning stick on the paddle surface while there is contact force between the cleaning stick and the paddle surface. However, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec by performing the cleaning by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned paddle surface while moving the cleaning stick relative to said surface. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, shore A hardness value, and density value of the rubber of the cleaning stick.
Wechsler provides evidence that a rubber consumer product can successfully be made with a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35 (Par. 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec such that the rubber stick has a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35. The rubber cleaning stick of Ju in view of Powertec is a rubber consumer product, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wechsler, who provides evidence that a rubber consumer product can successfully be made with a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35.
With regard to claim 20, the combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler teaches having the rubber cleaning stick made of natural rubber (see the Powertec reference).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the post “CLEAN YOUR PADDLE” by Townsend on https://insideden.com/pickleball-blog/clean-your-paddle/ as evidenced by U.S. 2024/0189679 by Davis in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021.
With regard to claims 13 and 14, Townsend teaches that a pickleball paddle “can become quite dirty”. Townsend teaches that the grit of a pickleball can capture dirt and that such dirt makes the paddle “smooth and less effective at putting spin on the pickleball”. Townsend teaches that a pickleball paddle should therefore be cleaned.
Townsend writes about “the grit of your pickleball paddle”, but doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by “grit”. As discussed, Townsend does teach that as a paddle becomes dirty, it becomes “smooth and less effective at putting spin on the pickleball”. Townsend doesn’t teach performing the cleaning with a cleaning device moved on the to-be-cleaned surface.
Davis provides evidences that, in the art of pickleball paddles, a rough exterior texture is what allows spin is to be put onto a ball (Par. 0062).
Powertec teaches a cleaning stick made of natural rubber, wherein the cleaning stick can successfully be used to clean rough surfaces such as “skateboard grip tape” and sanding surfaces (such as a “sanding belts”, “disc sanders”, and “drum sanders”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend by using a natural rubber cleaning stick of the type taught by Powertec to clean the rough exterior texture of a pickleball paddle. Davis provides evidences that, in the art of pickleball paddles, a rough exterior texture is what allows spin is to be put onto a ball. Townsend teaches that it is desirable to clean a pickleball paddle in order to retain the paddle’s ability to put spin on a ball, and motivation for using the rubber cleaning stick of Powertec was provided by Powertec, who teaches that their natural rubber cleaning stick is effective at cleaning rough surfaces.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec does not explicitly teach that the rubber cleaning stick performs the cleaning of the paddle by moving the cleaning stick on the paddle surface while there is contact force between the cleaning stick and the paddle surface. However, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec by performing the cleaning by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned paddle surface while moving the cleaning stick relative to said surface. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of using a cleaning stick to clean a surface such as skateboard grip-tape, it is well-known that such cleaning can be successfully performed by pressing the cleaning stick against the to-be-cleaned surface while moving the cleaning stick across the to-be-cleaned surface in order to remove contaminants therefrom.
With regard to claim 15, the combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec does not teach that the cleaning rubber has the specific dimensions recited by claim 15. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Size/Proportion and Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec such that the cleaning rubber has such dimensions, as the cleaning rubber could still successfully perform its cleaning role while having such dimensions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the post “CLEAN YOUR PADDLE” by Townsend on https://insideden.com/pickleball-blog/clean-your-paddle/ as evidenced by U.S. 2024/0189679 by Davis in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and further as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the post “CLEAN YOUR PADDLE” by Townsend on https://insideden.com/pickleball-blog/clean-your-paddle/ as evidenced by U.S. 2024/0189679 by Davis in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and further as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the tensile strength value and elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and tensile strength is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the tensile strength of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the tensile strength of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of stress the material can endure before failure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the post “CLEAN YOUR PADDLE” by Townsend on https://insideden.com/pickleball-blog/clean-your-paddle/ as evidenced by U.S. 2024/0189679 by Davis in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and further as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the tensile strength value and elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and tensile strength is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the tensile strength of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the tensile strength of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and elongation-at-break is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the elongation-at-break of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the elongation-at-break of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the post “CLEAN YOUR PADDLE” by Townsend on https://insideden.com/pickleball-blog/clean-your-paddle/ as evidenced by U.S. 2024/0189679 by Davis in view of “Powertec” webpage https://powertecproducts.com/71002-abrasive-cleaning-stick-8-1-2/, published 9/22/2021 as evidenced by U.S. 2014/0216357 by Wechsler as applied to claim 12 above, and further as evidenced by U.S. 2003/0113531 by Hajmrle.
With regard to claim 19, in the developed combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler, the rubber cleaning stick has a “Shore A hardness” of 30-35, and this range of 30-35 is considered to rendered applicant’s range of “about 32 to about 36” obvious due to the overlap of ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is silent about the tensile strength value, elongation-at-break value, and density value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick.
Hajmrle provides evidence that natural rubber can have a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 (Par. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the natural rubber of the cleaning stick has a density in the range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. The cleaning stick of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler is made of natural rubber, and the motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hajmrle providing evidence that a natural rubber material can be successfully made with a density of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3. In this developed combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle, the density range of about 0.9 g/cm3 to about 1.1 g/cm3 is considered to render applicant’s range of “about 0.7 to about 1.0 g/cm3” obvious due to the overlap of ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the tensile strength value and elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and tensile strength is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the tensile strength of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the tensile strength of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle is silent about the elongation-at-break value of the natural rubber of the cleaning stick. However, Powertec teaches that their rubber cleaning stick should have durability, and elongation-at-break is considered to a measure of “durability”, as it is a measure of how much of a stress a material can endure before failure. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle by optimizing the elongation-at-break of the rubber cleaning stick, as the stick should have durability and the elongation-at-break of the cleaning stick is a measure of its durability, as it corresponds to an amount of a stress the material can endure before failure.
The combination of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler as evidenced by Hajmrle does not teach that the cleaning rubber has the specific dimensions recited by claim 19. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Size/Proportion and Changes in Shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Townsend as evidenced by Davis in view of Powertec as evidenced by Wechsler such that the cleaning rubber has such dimensions, as the cleaning rubber could still successfully perform its cleaning role while having such dimensions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714