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
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) 1-2 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 115155026A) in view of Thurman et al. (US 20210252356 A1).
Zhou discloses a racquet comprising a rigid support comprising a first frame and a second frame connected to the first frame (e.g. see fig. 3, upper honeycomb plate 131 and lower honeycomb plate 133 are considered connected as they form the inner plate 13), wherein the first frame has a plurality of through holes (e.g. Fig. 3 shows the honeycomb upper and lower plates, the honeycomb structure provides through holes i.e. the space within the combs), and two panels bonded to a top surface of the foam core and a bottom surface of the foam core respectively, and covered the entire top surface and the entire bottom surface respectively (e.g. see Fig. 3 which shows upper and lower panels 11 and 12 respectively which cover the core layers of the racquet).
Zhou discloses the invention as claimed including a rubber core layer 132 to provide dampening but fails to teach this layer being comprised of foam, made up of a plurality of foam particles, comprising a foam body and foam handle, wherein the foam body covers the entire first frame and fills up all the through holes and the foam handle covers the entire second frame.
Thurman teaches that it is known to have the core layer of a pickleball paddle be comprised of foam, the core layer comprising a foam body and foam handle (e.g. paragraph 83), and the foam body covers the entire first frame and fills up all the through holes and the foam handle covers the entire second frame. Examiner is considering the inner layer 42 which has a similar honeycomb structure to be analogous to the first and second frame. Thurman clearly teaches the inner layer 42 to be present in the blade portion of the racquet and the handle portion as seen in Figs. 3-12. Thurman discloses the honeycomb inner layer 42 and filling of the cells with foam can provide for selective stiffness and control for the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Zhou with the core layer being comprised of foam, made up of a plurality of foam particles, comprising a foam body and foam handle, wherein the foam body covers the entire first frame and fills up all the through holes and the foam handle covers the entire second frame as taught by Thurman since such a modification would provide the predictable results of provide for selective stiffness and control for the user.
With regard to claim 2, Zhou discloses the two panels cover an entire periphery of the foam core together as seen in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4.
With regard to claim 6, the combined teachings of Zhou and Thurman as set forth above with respect to claim 1, results in a honeycomb reinforcement layer that extends from the handle through the blade portion. This is clearly seen in figs 3-12 of Thurman.
With regard to claims 7-8, Zhou in view of Thurman disclose the first frame of the rigid support includes a plurality of interconnected ribs and these ribs form those through holes, and the ribs are hollow as seen by the honeycomb structure of Zhou and Thurman.
With regard to claim 9, Zhou discloses the rigid support and a first frame and second frame being on top of one another (e.g. Fig. 3 shows layers 131 and 133 in a layered configuration). The combination above with respect to claim 1, suggests modifying Zhou to place these layers in the blade portion and the handle portion. With respect to claim 9, Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to keep the layered (on top of one another) configuration while also extending the first and second frames to extend from the blade and into the handle as taught by Thurman. Such a combination would provide the predictable results of providing a reinforced member throughout the entirety of the paddle while not sacrificing the layered sandwich construction that Zhou already sets forth.
With regard to claim 10, Zhou in view of Thurman as discussed above with respect to claim 1 disclose the invention as claimed including a first and second frame that extends from the blade to the handle portion, but fails to teach the second frame being thicker than the first frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Zhou in view of Thurman with making the second frame thicker than the first frame since the second frame would be in the handle portion and added support thickness would provide for better reduction of vibrations at the user’s hand which grasps the handle portion.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Thurman as applied above, further in view of Marvin (US 2017/0021248 A1).
With regard to claim 3-4, Zhou in view of Thurman disclose the invention as claimed including the top and bottom panels extending about the periphery of the blade portion of the racquet, but fails to teach a peripheral edge of one of the panels and a peripheral edge of the other panel are all connected but does not overlap. Marvin teaches that it is known to join the upper and lower panels and form a seam where they are joined on the lateral side of the racquet (which is also the periphery of the foam core) as set forth in paragraph 48 for providing the elimination of needing to include an edge guard in the manufacturing process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Zhou in view of Thurman with a peripheral edge of one of the panels and a peripheral edge of the other panel are all connected but does not overlap since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a known alternative manufacturing method that provides for the elimination of needing to include an edge guard in the manufacturing process.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Thurman and Marvin as applied to claims 3-4 above, further in view of Reinhall et al (US 2025/0170467 A1).
Zhou in view of Thurman and Marvin disclose the invention as claimed but fail to teach each panel comprises a foam skin and a non-foam plastic film formed on an entire inner surface of the foam skin of one of the panels is bonded to the entire top surface of the foam core, and the entire inner surface of the foam skin on the other panel is bonded to the entire bottom surface of the foam core.
Reinhall teaches that it is known to use a multilayer construction of the outer paddle layer comprising a foam skin and a non-foam plastic film formed on an entire inner surface of the foam skin of one of the panels is bonded to the entire top surface of the foam core, and the entire inner surface of the foam skin on the other panel is bonded to the entire bottom surface of the foam core as set forth in paragraph 33 for providing the predictable results of tuning the playability of the paddle by factoring in stiffness while also accounting for a desired noise level. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Zhou in view of Thurman and Marvin with each panel comprises a foam skin and a non-foam plastic film formed on an entire inner surface of the foam skin of one of the panels is bonded to the entire top surface of the foam core, and the entire inner surface of the foam skin on the other panel is bonded to the entire bottom surface of the foam core since such a modification would provide the predictable results of tuning the playability of the paddle by factoring in stiffness while also accounting for a desired noise level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A STOKLOSA whose telephone number is (571)272-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930AM-530PM.
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, Jonathan Teixeira-Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794