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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because it includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). It is presumed these reference characters were intended to be deleted similar to the other amendments to the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 line 5 recites “the longitudinal centreline” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No longitudinal centreline was previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 line 9 recites “the periphery” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No periphery was previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 line 19 recites “the point on the line” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No point on the line was previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 line 3 recites “the interval” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No interval was previously claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6 recite “including the interval end points and within manufacturing tolerances.” It is unclear what these recitations are intended to mean. It is both unclear what “including the interval end points” is intended to mean since a radius of the rib was already claimed, and, it is unclear what “within manufacturing tolerances” is intended to mean, since this does not define any value. Appropriate correction is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “in the interval of 0.2 mm to 4 mm,” and the claim also recites “preferably in the interval of 1 mm to 3 mm, more preferably 2.5 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 9 and 14 recite “the lateral axis,” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No lateral axis was previously claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). These claims also recite broad, and then more narrow ranges, which is also indefinite. See above for details.
The term “about” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the proximal end of the striking portion” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No proximal end of the striking portion was previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “the distal end of the striking portion” which lacks proper antecedent basis. No distal end of the striking portion was previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 17 and 19 recite “including the interval end points” which is unclear. It is unclear what “the interval end points” are intended to be, and what including them means in the context of a radius. Appropriate clarification / correction is required.
Claim 19 line 5 recites “for forming the frame and an interior material.” It is unclear what “and an interior material” is intended to mean. It is unclear if this is intended to be the material that forms the frame, or if this is intended to be a different part of the padel formed by the same material. This term should refer to some part of the padel presumably. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 line 6 recites “for receiving a material,” however “placing material” was already recited, creating an antecedent basis issue. Presumably this was intended to be “for receiving the material.” Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear if these elements are intended to be recited together or in the alternative, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The specific structural limitations of a padel racket as defined with a handle, intermediate portion, central element, surrounding frame, striking surfaces, and a plurality of ribs on the frame, with the ribs being defined as extending in a curved manner around the frame from face to face with a center point of the ribs being offset creating a specific curved offset rib structure are not anticipated nor obvious over the prior art of record in the examiners opinion. For example, the prior art of Lin (US PGPub. No. 2023/0149785 A1), and Gazzara et al. (US Patent No. 8,371,968 B2) teach a padel racket with a handle, intermediate portion, central element, surrounding frame, and striking surfaces, but fails to teach the curved and offset ribbed elements as claimed. Similarly, the prior art of Wilke (US PGPub. No. 2004/0229719 A1) and Ryder (US Patent No. 1,558,507) teach what can be considered curved rib elements on a racquet frame, but fail to teach applying these elements to a padel racket, and also fail to teach the specific structure of the ribs, including the specific shape of the curved offset as claimed. Further, it would not be obvious, in the examiner’s opinion, to combine these references in order to read on the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references disclose inventions similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights