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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, filed 12/04/2023, are pending and are currently under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f) based upon application no. 2023229111740, files October 27, 2023, in China (CNIPA).
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 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2022/0273997 A1) in view of Xiaohua (CN 219167665 U) and further in view of Grey (WO 1997/021475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng et al. teaches a pickleball paddle comprising a paddle head (racket body) and a paddle handle (racket handle), the two parts separated by cutting ([0004]; [0034]). The cutting surfaces are then laminated and wrapped with carbon or glass fiber layers, cured in a mold, and integrated into an integrated paddle structure ([0008]; [0010]: [0039]; [0041]). Zheng et al. accordingly teaches a pickleball racket in which the junction end of the handle and the junction end of the body are brought into close contact and secured together.
Zheng et al. does not teach that the junction end of the racket handle is provided with first wavy concave-convex structures or that the junction end of the racket body is provided with corresponding second wavy concave-convex structures. In Zheng et al., the mating surfaces at the handle-body junction are flat, planar cut surfaces ([0034]-[0036]).
Xiaohua teaches a pickleball racket in which structural features of the racket body improve vibration damping and ball control. The framework of hexagonal structural units with foam-filled inner cavities "reduce[s] vibration transmitted to the grab handle 10 during batting," and the coating material increases "friction force between the racket body 20 and the ball" to "further optimize the hand feeling during striking" (Detailed Description). These teachings directly establish, as a matter of same-field motivation, that deliberate structural design of the racket body-including the configuration of its surface and joining features-is employed in the pickleball paddle art to improve shock absorption and to increase the area for controlling a pickleball, as required by the functional clause of claim 1.
Grey teaches complementary interlocking concave-convex formations between mating parts. Grey is analogous to the claimed invention as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of providing a mechanically robust interlocking interface between separately manufactured parts. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). Grey discloses a socket having "at least two petals with a lip contour such that in one type of socket-to-socket connection the pair of sockets interlock" (Abstract, Pg. 1). The outer lip contour of each petal is complementary to the inner lip contour of the mating petal, "i.e., two petals 140 of two construction elements 100 may interlock" (Pg. 13, lines 19-27). Under BRI (MPEP § 2111) this alternating concave-convex lip profile constitutes a "wavy concave-convex structure" at the mating interface, and the complementary profiles of the interlocking sockets establish first and corresponding second wavy concave-convex structures on the mating parts that are "closely connected" when interlocked. Grey further confirms that "ball, body and jaw can be made separately and then assembled and reassembled based on consumer's needs" (Pg. 27, lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to modify Zheng et al.'s fat cut-surface junction to incorporate Grey's complementary interlocking concave-convex formations a the handle-to-body interface, as motivated by Xiaohua’s express teaching that deliberate structural configuration of the racket ‘body improves shock absorption and ball control in a pickleball paddle, because doing so would predictably increase the mating surface area improve joint structural integrity, and distribute shock forces over a non-planar interface, a known benefit of interlocking joints in the mechanical arts. The selection of a particular configuration of mating-surface geometry from among known interlocking joint profiles constitutes an obvious design choice that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to implement with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (modification of the configuration of parts is prima facie obvious where the modification produces no new or unexpected result); KSR Int'l Co. v, Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-421 (2007). The “thereby improving shock absorption” clause of claim 1 is functional result language that does not require the prior art to state the functional result explicitly where the claimed structure, as modified, inherently produces that result, See MPEP § 2114; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zheng eta, Xiaohua, and Grey, as applied to claim 1 above, renders the additional subject matter of claim 3 obvious. Grey expressly teaches that the interlocking socket interface comprises “at least two petals” with complementary concave-convex lip contours arranged around the socket perimeter (Abstract, Pg. 1; Pg. 13, lines 19-27; Claim 1, Pg, 28; Claim 21, Pg. 31). Grey therefore teaches a plurality of specifically at least two complementary concave-convex formations present at a mating interface. Xiaohua further teaches a multi-plate racket body (20) comprising a plate body (21) formed by splicing a plurality of plate blocks (210) arranged continuously in the width direction (Abstract; Detailed Description), establishing the concept of continuous, side-by-side arrangement of multiple structural elements across a paddle body interface.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the handle-to-body junction of the Zheng et al., Xiaohua, and Grey combination with at least two of Grey's concave-convex interlocking formations arranged continuously side by side along the junction edge because providing multiple interlocking interface features across the full extent of a joining edge isa routine technique for maximizing joint surface engagement, improving alignment, and resisting lateral shear forces, the same structural performance objectives identified throughout the applied references for paddle body interfaces. The specific minimum-quantity limitation of “not less than two" arranged “side by side in a continuous manner” reflets a design choice among a range of known configurations for interlocking joints. Applicant has not established, and the record does not reflect, that this specific linear side-by-side arrangement produces any new, unexpected, or critical resalt not inherent in the combination of Xiaohua’s multi-element plate architecture and Grey's multi-petal interlocking geometry. See MPEP § 2144.04; KSR Int'l Co. v, Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng expressly teaches the limitation that the outsides of the cut-off parts of the paddle head and paddle handle "are wrapped with wrapping layers (3) composed of carbon fiber yarns or glass fiber yarns layer by layer and then fixed to form an integrated paddle body structure" ([0008]; [0039]). The wrapping layer is composed of carbon fiber, glass fiber, and a filling material, and is cured in a mold to connect the paddle head and handle into a whole ([0009]-[0010]; [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Xiaohua teaches that the racket body (20) comprises a plate body (21) formed by splicing a plurality of plate blocks (210): “the plate body is formed by spicing a plurality of plates” (Abstract). The plates are spliced along their width direction and subsequently cut to form the final plate-body contour (Detailed Description). Xiaohua accordingly teaches a racket body ‘comprising a plurality of racket plates but does not expressly teach upper and lower wavy concave-convex structures at the inter-plate interfaces.
As discussed for claim 1 above, Grey teaches complementary interlocking concave-convex lip contours at the interface between mating parts (Pg. 13, lines 19-27; Claim 21, Pg. 31). Under BRI (MPEP § 2111) Grey's complementary formations at opposing mating surfaces teach the concept of upper and lower wavy concave-convex structures at the ends of adjacent plates through which those plates are connected.
It would have been obvious to form the inter-plat interfaces of Xiaohua ’s spliced-plate racket body with Grey's complementary interlocking concave-convex contours because doing so would predictably improve plate-to-plate alignment, increase bonding surface area, and resist lateral shea forces under ball striking impact, the same structural performance objectives Xiaohua identifies for its multi-plate body design. The configuration of inter-plate mating surfaces is a design choice for which Grey provides explicit structural guidance. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zheng et al., Xiaohua, and Grey, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, renders the additional subject matter of claim 6 obvious. Grey expressly teaches that the interlocking interface comprises at least two petals with complementary concave-convex lip contours (Abstract; Pg. 13, lines 19-27; Claim 1, Pg. 28; Claim 21, Pg. 31), directly teaching a plurality of concave-convex formations at a joining interface. Xiaohua teaches an array-based, multi-plate body architecture in which multiple structural elements are disposed continuously across the body of the racket (Detailed Description; Abstract), establishing the concept of continuously arranged side-by-side elements across a paddle body interface.
It would have been obvious toa person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the inter-plate interfaces of Xiaohua’s spliced-plate racket body with a least two of Grey's complementary concave-convex formations arranged side by side because providing multiple interlocking interface features along the full extent of a plate-to-plate joint is a routine technique for maximizing plate alignment, bonding area, and resistance to lateral shear forces under ball-striking impact. The specific minimum-quantity threshold of "not less than two" formations "arranged side by side in a continuous manner" reflects a design choice. Applicant has not established that this specific arrangement produces any new, unexpected, or critical result not inherent in the combination of Xiaohua's multi-element continuous plate array and Grey's multi-petal interlocking geometry. See MPEP § 2144.04; KSR Int'l Co. v, Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Xiaohua teaches that the framework (211) of each plate block (210) within the racket body comprises structural units (2111) arranged in an array, each having a hexagonal inner cavity (2112) to form a honeycomb geometry, and that "the skeleton 211 is made of polypropylene or aramid to increase its flexibility and to extend the residence time of the pickleball on the face of the racquet to enhance the ball control ability" (Detailed Description). This polypropylene hexagonal-cavity framework constitutes a PP honeycomb plate within the meaning of claim 7 under BRI. Xiaohua further teaches that this structure "reduce[s] the weight of the entire ball racket while maintaining the structural strength of the frame 211" and provides "a certain sound absorbing effect" (Detailed Description), expressly motivating a POSITA to incorporate this known construction in Zheng's sectional pickleball paddle to achieve these recognized performance benefits. See KSR Int'l Co. v, Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2022/0273997 A1) in view of Xiaohua (CN 219167665 U) and further in view of Grey (WO 1997/021475 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thurman et al. (US 2021/0252356 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng et al. teaches that the paddle handle (2) necessarily comprises a gripping region and a connection region as parts of a single, unified handle structure ([0034]). Regarding the "integrated into one body using a mold" recitation: because claim 2 is an apparatus claim, patentability turns on the structure of the final product, not the process by which it is manufactured. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP § 2113. A single-piece handle having a grip part and a connecting part is structurally indistinguishable from any other single-piece handle of identical geometry, absent a structural distinction attributable solely to the recited molding process step. Accordingly, the "integrated into one body using a mold" recitation does not, standing alone, distinguish the claimed handle from the prior art.
Thurman et al. expressly teaches that a pickleball paddle handle can be integrally formed with the paddle head as a one-piece frame through bladder molding: "the handle 30 can be integrally formed with, and connected to, the head 40 to form a one-piece frame" and "a perimeter of the head 40 and the handle 30 can be formed through bladder molding from a fiber composite material" ([0079]). Thurman et al.'s Claim 5 further confirms that the handle comprises "a handle core and a grip joined to the handle core, the handle core being integrally formed with the inner layer, the first outer faceplate and the second outer faceplate as part of the single unitary body." Thurman et al. thereby expressly teaches a pickleball paddle handle comprising a grip portion and a connecting portion integrated as a single molded piece.
It would have been obvious to configure Zheng et al.’s handle, including its grip and connecting portions, as a single integral molded piece, as taught by Thurman et al, because integral construction predictably reduces part count, eliminates inter-component joints, and improves overall handle structural integrity, recognized benefits of unitary construction that were well understood in the pickleball paddle art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Co. v, Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30 -5:00.
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.
ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT
Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights