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 1-3 and 5-14 are pending. Claim 4 is canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 5 were amended in the reply filed August 26, 2026. Claims 12-14 were newly presented in that reply. Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement previously submitted in the application has been considered.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-102115, filed June 22, 2023. The priority claim is acknowledged. The applied references relied upon below were publicly available before June 22, 2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 26, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 was amended to further recite that the central position is located at a midpoint of the total length of the paddle in the up-down direction and that the reinforcement portion includes a central forming portion overlying a lower end of the hitting surface of the head portion in the up-down direction. Claims 3 and 5 were amended, claim 4 was canceled, and claims 12-14 were added.
The amendment to claim 1 introduces a limitation concerning the relationship between the reinforcement portion and the lower end of the hitting surface that was not expressly addressed by the combination previously applied to claim 1. The rejection of amended claim 1, and therefore the rejections of claims depending from claim 1, are updated below to apply Baltzley (US 1961473 A) for that newly added relationship. New claim 12 is rejected using the same combination because Baltzley also teaches a beveled, and therefore tapered, reinforcement edge. New claims 13-14 are rejected further in view of Gabrielidis (US 4641838 A) for the fitting portion that receives a grip-forming region and the recited C-shaped fitting geometry.
The remaining teachings and mappings from the Non-Final Rejection are retained to the extent they remain applicable to the present claim set.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US 20210260452 A1) in view of Van Auken (US 4023799 A) and Baltzley (US 1961473 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng is the primary reference and establishes the base pickleball paddle. Zheng discloses a “multilayer composite pickleball racket” having a board and a handle connected to the board (Abstract; [0007]; Claim 1; Fig. 1). The board corresponds to the claimed head portion, and the handle corresponds to the claimed grip portion extending in the up-down direction. Zheng further teaches opposed outer ball-striking surfaces by disclosing a composite filler layer inside the board and a rubber or fiber layer on the outside of the board ([0007], [0012]; Claims 1 and 5; Figs. 1-3). Zheng also teaches reinforcement at the connection part: “the engagement part is connected to the bottom end of the board; and a reinforcement rib is arranged at a joint of the engagement part and the board” ([0013], [0027]; Claim 6; Fig. 1).
Zheng does not expressly teach the two relationships added to claim 1: (1) an upper end of the reinforcement portion below the midpoint of the total paddle length and (2) a central forming portion overlying a lower end of the hitting surface.
Van Auken supplies the first gap by teaching that racket reinforcement should be concentrated at the head-handle junction. Van Auken states that the junction of the head and handle defines the throat section, that reinforcing skins are provided on the throat, and that the throat skin overlaps the head skin “only at the junction of the handle and the head portion” (Col. 1, lines 35-41; Col. 2, lines 60-67; Claim 1; Figs. 1 and 5). Van Auken further states that the overlap occurs “in the immediate vicinity of the juncture of the throat and head portion” and explains that the throat reinforcement provides torsional stiffness (Col. 3, lines 49-56; Col. 4, lines 32-46). Thus, Van Auken teaches limiting reinforcement to the lower head-handle junction rather than continuing reinforcement throughout the upper head.
Baltzley supplies the remaining hitting-surface relationship and additionally teaches that reinforcement extent is a design variable. Baltzley discloses a solid-faced paddle reinforced at the handle-blade junction by strips 6 and 7 “overlying the opposite faces of the paddle” and extending upward from the handle (p. 1, lines 29-43; Figs. 1-4). Baltzley further discloses rubber facing layers 16 on the active blade portion and explains that the facing material may extend beneath the transverse reinforcement and that the reinforcement blades cover the edges of the facing layers (p. 1, lines 60-92; Figs. 1, 3, and 4). This teaches reinforcement extending onto and over the lower region of the solid hitting face. Baltzley also explains that the transverse bracing strips impart stability and “may project a greater or less extent than shown, depending upon the stiffness of the blade material and other features, so long as they impart the desired stability to the blade” (p. 1, lines 94-108). Baltzley identifies light weight, balance, and handling qualities among the design objectives (p. 1, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zheng sequentially by (1) localizing the connection reinforcement to the lower head-handle region in accordance with Van Auken and (2) extending the localized reinforcement onto the lower opposed hitting faces in accordance with Baltzley. Zheng, Van Auken, and Baltzley are analogous because each concerns a hand-held ball-striking implement and reinforcement of the structural transition between the striking head/blade and the handle. Van Auken's localized throat reinforcement is a known technique for increasing torsional stiffness, and Baltzley's face-overlying transverse reinforcement is a known technique for stabilizing a solid paddle blade; applying those techniques to Zheng would use each feature for its established function and would be within the ordinary mechanical fabrication skill reflected by the references. Further, Baltzley expressly teaches that reinforcement extent may be increased or decreased according to stiffness and design requirements while also identifying weight and balance as design concerns. Reinforcement extent was therefore recognized as a result-effective variable. Selecting a workable extent that terminates in the lower half of the paddle, i.e., below the midpoint, while retaining the desired connection stability would have been a predictable optimization with a reasonable expectation of success. The facts therefore satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(C) for use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way and are consistent with the result-effective-variable principles of MPEP § 2144.05. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-21, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396-97 (2007); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Unlike reliance on unscaled drawing proportions, the midpoint conclusion rests on Baltzley's express teaching that the extent of the reinforcement is adjustable in view of stiffness, stability, weight, and balance.
Regarding claim 2, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claim 1, teaches all limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 further requires the grip portion and head portion to be formed by a panel member having a thickness and requires the reinforcement portion to be provided along the forming surface of each of both sides of that panel member, on the outer side of each side, at the connection part.
Zheng supplies the panel structure by teaching a board having an internal composite filler layer and exterior rubber or fiber layers on the opposite sides of the board ([0007], [0012], [0026]; Claims 1 and 5; Figs. 1-3). The board therefore has a thickness direction and opposed forming surfaces. The remaining bilateral outer-surface reinforcement relationship is taught by Van Auken and Baltzley. Van Auken states that “the head skin 26 is applied to the opposing faces of the core and parallel to the striking plane” and that “[t]he throat reinforcing skin 27 is applied to the opposing faces of throat section 19 of the racket frame” (Col. 2, lines 60-67; Figs. 2, 3, and 5). Baltzley likewise teaches reinforcement strips “overlying the opposite faces of the paddle” at the handle-blade junction (p. 1, lines 35-43; Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the localized reinforcement of the modified Zheng paddle on both opposed outer forming surfaces, as expressly taught by Van Auken and Baltzley. The base device is Zheng's layered paddle panel; the comparable devices of Van Auken and Baltzley use bilateral face reinforcement at the corresponding head-handle or handle-blade transition to resist bending/torsion and stabilize the structure. A skilled artisan could have bonded or secured reinforcement to both opposed faces using the conventional fabrication approaches taught by the references, and the reinforcement would continue to perform its established stiffening function on each side. The expected result-symmetrical connection reinforcement on both ball-striking sides-would have been predictable, with a reasonable expectation of success. This is the use of a known bilateral reinforcement technique to improve a similar device in the same way under MPEP § 2143(I)(C). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Regarding claim 3, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claims 1 and 2, teaches the paddle, the panel member, and reinforcement on both outer forming surfaces at the connection part. Claim 3 further requires the reinforcement portion to include lateral-side forming portions extending in strip form from both the right and left sides of the central forming portion.
Baltzley directly teaches that additional geometry. Its transverse reinforcement strips overlie the paddle faces, are “shaped to follow the edges of the blade,” and extend laterally from the handle region toward the blade width (p. 1, lines 35-43; Fig. 1). Baltzley's claim 5 is consistent with the description and recites extensions projecting transversely from beneath the handle over opposite blade faces toward substantially the full blade width to impart lateral stability. Van Auken independently confirms the art-recognized purpose of distributing throat reinforcement to control torsional characteristics (Col. 3, lines 49-56).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to shape the lower-head reinforcement already added to Zheng with right and left strip portions extending laterally from the central connection region, following Baltzley's known transverse-bracing configuration. The prior art supplies all of the claimed structural elements; conventional shaping and attachment methods could combine them without changing their established functions, and Baltzley expressly teaches that the lateral extensions impart blade stability. The result-reinforcement extending along the right and left load-transfer paths from the paddle head toward the handle-would have been predictable, and the predictable mechanical nature of the structures provides a reasonable expectation of success. The facts satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(A), combining known prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-18.
Regarding claim 5, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claims 1 and 2, teaches the paddle, panel member, and bilateral connection reinforcement. Claim 5 further requires lower-side inclined edges on the head and a reinforcement plate portion whose right and left lateral sides extend along those inclined edges and whose upper side connects the upper ends of the lateral sides.
Zheng teaches the board connected to the handle at the bottom of the board and the reinforcement rib at that joint ([0013], [0027]; Claim 6; Fig. 1). Baltzley teaches the missing contour-following reinforcement configuration. Baltzley states that the face-overlying reinforcement strips are “shaped to follow the edges of the blade” (p. 1, lines 35-43; Fig. 1), states that the lower blade portions “curve inward to the handle” (p. 1, lines 78-83), and shows a transverse upper boundary connecting the laterally extending portions of the reinforcement (Fig. 1). Thus, Baltzley teaches a plate/strip reinforcement shaped to follow the widening lower-head contour.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the reinforcement plate of the modified Zheng paddle so that its lateral sides follow the lower inclined head edges and its upper side joins the lateral sides, as taught by Baltzley. Zheng provides the widening head-handle transition, while Baltzley teaches shaping the reinforcement to conform to the corresponding blade contour for stability. A skilled artisan could have applied that known contour-following geometry using ordinary forming and attachment methods, with the predictable result that reinforcement coverage follows the structural load path and existing paddle outline. MPEP § 2143(I)(C) therefore applies. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), discussed in MPEP § 2144.04, further supports the conclusion rather than serving as a per se “design choice” rule: Dailey concerned a claimed configuration of a known article that lacked persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was functionally critical. Here, the record is stronger because Baltzley itself expressly teaches the contour-following reinforcement geometry for the same stabilizing function, and no objective evidence shows that the claimed outline produces an unexpected result. See KSR; MPEP §§ 2143(I)(C), 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claims 1 and 2, teaches the panel member and the external connection reinforcement. Claim 6 further requires an arrangement region of the reinforcement in the head portion to be formed by a locally smaller panel thickness than the thickness of a region outside that arrangement region.
Van Auken teaches precisely the relevant recessed/undercut technique for accommodating reinforcement at the head-throat junction. Van Auken states that, because “the throat skin 27 will overlap the head skin 26 in the immediate vicinity of the juncture of the throat and head portion of the racket frame,” the head portion of the core is “slightly undercut,” preferably by a depth equal to the thickness of the head skin (Col. 4, lines 32-39; Fig. 5). Van Auken explains that the overlap provides “a relatively smooth transition in the load bearing fiber” and avoids weak junctures (Col. 4, lines 40-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form a reduced-thickness arrangement region in the head of the modified Zheng paddle where the reinforcement is received. The modified Zheng device is a known layered paddle with added external reinforcement and therefore presents the same local-thickness transition addressed by Van Auken. Van Auken supplies the known undercut technique and expressly identifies its benefit at the same head-throat junction. Applying the undercut would have been within ordinary fabrication skill and would predictably accommodate the reinforcement while providing the smoother load-bearing transition taught by Van Auken. A skilled artisan therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of success. These findings satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(D): applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Regarding claim 12, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claim 1, teaches the central forming portion of the reinforcement extending from the handle/connection region over the lower hitting-face region. Claim 12 further requires that central forming portion to be tapered.
Baltzley teaches tapering/beveling at the same handle-blade reinforcement transition. Baltzley states that the inner ends of the handle members are “beveled down toward the blade” and that “the upper edges 15 of the reinforcement strips are shown as similarly beveled in continuation of the handle bevel” (p. 1, lines 49-60; Figs. 1-3). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disclosed bevel is a taper because the reinforcement transitions through a diminishing section rather than terminating with a uniform square edge.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the central connection reinforcement of the modified Zheng paddle with the tapered/beveled transition expressly taught by Baltzley. The base and comparable devices both use reinforcement at the handle-blade/head junction, and Baltzley demonstrates that a taper can be formed in that reinforcement while it continues to provide its known reinforcing function. The geometry could be produced using ordinary shaping methods, and the predictable result would be the same reinforced connection with the known beveled transition. The level of skill reflected by the references provides a reasonable expectation of success, and no objective evidence of unexpected performance for the taper is of record. The facts satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(C). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US 5249799 A).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claim 1, teaches all limitations of claim 1, including a panel-type paddle with localized connection reinforcement extending onto the lower hitting-face region. Claim 7 additionally requires the reinforcement to be provided on the outer side along an end surface of the panel at the connection part and to grasp the panel from both thickness-direction sides. Zheng, Van Auken, and Baltzley do not expressly teach that edge-grasping relationship as a single connection-reinforcement configuration.
Chang supplies the gap. Chang discloses a racket throat piece comprising a plate 31 with “two reinforcing longitudinal side flanges (32) to form a substantially U-shaped cross-section” and curved ends attached to the curved throat portions (Col. 2, lines 35-42; Figs. 2-4). Chang further explains that the throat piece bridges the curved throat portions and is covered with a plastic composite layer, increasing the strength of the joints between the frame and throat piece (Col. 2, lines 35-63). The central plate and opposing flanges provide an edge-spanning reinforcement geometry that engages the connection structure from opposed sides.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further configure the connection reinforcement of the modified Zheng paddle with Chang's U-shaped edge-grasping geometry, while retaining the lower-face reinforcement already supplied by Baltzley. Chang and the modified Zheng paddle are analogous hand-held ball-striking implements and address the same mechanical problem of strengthening the head-handle/throat transition. Chang teaches the U-shaped throat piece as a known technique for engaging the connection structure on opposed sides and strengthening the joint. A skilled artisan could have formed the existing reinforcement assembly with an edge-spanning central portion and opposed flanges using ordinary metal/composite forming or molding techniques, and those portions would retain their established reinforcing function. The predictable result would be reinforcement that engages the panel edge and both thickness-direction sides, with a reasonable expectation of success. These facts satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(C). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18; MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du Gardin et al. (US 4725059 A, “Du Gardin”).
Regarding claim 8, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claim 1, teaches the paddle, panel structure, and localized connection reinforcement required by claim 1. Claim 8 further requires the reinforcement portion to fall within the thickness of the panel member at the connection part. The claim-1 combination uses reinforcement associated with the exterior connection region and does not expressly teach embedding the reinforcement within the panel thickness.
Du Gardin supplies the internal-reinforcement technique. Du Gardin discloses a composite racket body in which the frame, throat, and shaft portions each have a core enveloped by a fiber web/sheath impregnated with resin, and the sheaths of adjoining portions overlap at junction regions (Col. 1, lines 14-20; Col. 3, lines 5-25; Figs. 1-8). Du Gardin further states that, in the junction zones, “there is an overlapping of the sheaths of the adjoining portions,” and describes several centimeters of overlap between the shaft and branch sheaths (Col. 5, lines 30-45). The reinforcement is therefore incorporated into the composite body rather than merely attached as an exterior appendage.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the connection reinforcement of the modified Zheng paddle using Du Gardin's internal overlapping-sheath technique so that the reinforcement lies within the panel thickness. Du Gardin is a comparable composite racket and teaches internal overlap specifically to reinforce junction regions and tailor strength. Applying the known internal composite-reinforcement technique to Zheng would use conventional resin/fiber fabrication, would preserve the same localized reinforcing function, and would predictably provide a reinforced connection while maintaining the external panel profile. A skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because Du Gardin teaches the technique at the same type of shaft/throat junction. The facts satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(C), rather than relying on an unsupported assertion of equivalence. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Regarding claim 9, Zheng in view of Van Auken, Baltzley, and Du Gardin, as modified for claims 1 and 8, teaches the paddle and an internally reinforced panel at the connection part. Claim 9 further requires a sandwich-type panel having a core material thinner than the total head thickness, front-and back-side thin plate forming layers, and first and second core-forming portions in which the first forming portion forms the grip, connection part, and lower head region, constitutes the reinforcement portion, and has a greater Young's modulus than the second forming portion.
Zheng supplies the sandwich-panel baseline. Zheng teaches a composite filler layer inside the board and a rubber or fiber layer arranged on the outer side of the board and wrapped over the outer surface of the filler ([0007], [0012], [0026]; Claims 1 and 5; Figs. 1-3). The internal filler is necessarily thinner than the total head thickness because the exterior layers add thickness, and the opposed exterior layers correspond to the claimed front-and back-side thin plate forming layers.
The remaining material-zone difference is supplied by Du Gardin. Du Gardin teaches that different longitudinal zones of a racket use different core materials and different structural characteristics: the shaft core is acrylic foam, the throat-branch cores are semirigid polyurethane foam, and the frame core is polyethylene foam (Col. 3, lines 35-55; Figs. 6-9). Du Gardin further explains that the nature of the core and fiber web differs from one racket portion to another so that each zone may be provided with “structural and strength characteristics taking account of the constraints of that zone” (Col. 5, lines 30-45). Thus, Du Gardin expressly teaches selecting different core materials by region to obtain different stiffness/strength characteristics, including a rigid shaft region and less-rigid adjoining regions.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Zheng's internal core with a first, stiffer material region extending through the grip, connection part, and lower head and a second, less-stiff material region in the remainder of the head, following Du Gardin's disclosed material zoning. The gap is not the discovery of a new material but the selection and placement of known core materials according to the stiffness required in different racket zones. Du Gardin itself identifies that design principle and the relevant mechanical constraints. A skilled artisan would have selected a known material having a greater Young's modulus for the region intended to be more rigid and a lower-modulus material for the less-rigid region, with a reasonable expectation that the relative stiffness would follow the known material properties. This is a known technique for improving a similar composite racket under MPEP § 2143(I)(C). The facts also align with the material-suitability precedent of MPEP § 2144.07: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. and In re Leshin support selection of a known material where its known properties satisfy a known design requirement. Here, Du Gardin expressly supplies the design requirement-different structural/strength characteristics by zone-and identifies rigid versus less-rigid core regions, so the cited precedent reinforces the fact-specific selection rather than serving as a per se rule. See KSR; Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); MPEP §§ 2143(I)(C), 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Zheng in view of Van Auken, Baltzley, and Du Gardin, as modified for claims 1 and 8, teaches the paddle and internal connection reinforcement. Claim 10 further requires the sandwich-panel core and forming layers and requires a first forming portion at each of the right and left end-surface regions of at least the connection part, with the first forming portion having a greater Young's modulus than the remaining second forming portion.
Zheng teaches the internal filler and opposed exterior layers of the sandwich-type panel as discussed for claim 9 ([0007], [0012], [0026]; Claims 1 and 5; Figs. 1-3). Du Gardin supplies the right/left reinforced-zone teaching. Du Gardin discloses two branches forming the throat portion, one on each side of the connection region, with core and sheath compositions selected separately from the shaft and frame portions (Col. 3, lines 35-55; Figs. 1 and 6-9). Du Gardin explains that material nature and fiber construction may differ among racket portions to provide structural and strength characteristics suited to the constraints of each zone (Col. 5, lines 30-45). The two throat branches therefore teach differentiated material zones at the right and left sides of the connection region.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the right and left connection-edge regions of Zheng's internal core from a material having a greater Young's modulus than the remaining core region, using Du Gardin's bilateral throat-zone material-selection technique. Du Gardin identifies the precise engineering principle: different connection zones are given different material constructions to meet different structural constraints. Selecting known higher-modulus material for the right and left regions expected to carry the connection reinforcement would predictably increase local stiffness while allowing the remaining core to use a less-stiff material. The materials and layered construction are conventional in the applied references, providing a reasonable expectation of success. This satisfies MPEP § 2143(I)(C). The facts also fit MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin because the claimed difference is the selection of a known material property for a known structural purpose; unlike an unsupported material substitution, Du Gardin expressly teaches zonal material selection based on structural demands. See KSR; In re Leshin; MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claim 1, teaches a panel member and bilateral connection reinforcement associated with the opposed forming surfaces. Claim 11 further requires those reinforcement portions to be positioned within the thickness of the panel member on both sides at the connection part. The claim-1 combination does not expressly teach embedding the bilateral reinforcement within the panel thickness.
Du Gardin teaches the missing internal bilateral composite arrangement. Du Gardin discloses cores enveloped by fiber-web sheaths and overlapping sheaths at the junction regions (Col. 3, lines 5-25; Col. 5, lines 30-45; Figs. 1-8). The fiber webs surround the respective cores and the overlapping sheath zones remain within the composite racket body. Van Auken supplies the bilateral-face concept, while Du Gardin supplies the known technique for placing fiber reinforcement within the composite body at the same type of junction.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to embed the bilateral connection reinforcement of the modified Zheng paddle within the panel thickness using Du Gardin's internal sheath-overlap technique. The base device and Du Gardin are comparable composite ball-striking implements, and Du Gardin teaches internal fiber reinforcement at shaft/throat junctions for the same strength-transfer purpose. A skilled artisan could have embedded the opposed reinforcement layers using the resin/fiber techniques taught by Du Gardin, with each layer continuing to perform its established reinforcement function. The predictable result would be bilateral connection reinforcement contained within the panel thickness, and the reference's successful use of overlapping fiber sheaths supplies a reasonable expectation of success. The facts satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(C). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of
Van Auken and Baltzley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gabrielidis (US 4641838 A).
Regarding claim 13, Zheng in view of Van Auken and Baltzley, as modified for claim 1, teaches all limitations of claim 1, including a grip/handle region and localized connection reinforcement. Claim 13 further requires the grip portion to be formed by a panel member having a grip-forming region and requires the reinforcement portion to include a fitting portion that receives the grip-forming region in the thickness direction. The claim-1 combination does not expressly teach that receiving/fitting relationship.
Gabrielidis supplies the missing fitting technique. Gabrielidis teaches a racket shank 16 of substantially uniform cross-section and a handle formed from facing C-shaped sections 20 and 22. Gabrielidis states that the sections “face each other and embrace handle shank 16” and that the opening defined by the sections has substantially the same cross-section as the shank, with clearance that permits positioning and later clamping (Col. 2, lines 39-59; Figs. 2-4). Thus, Gabrielidis teaches a structural fitting portion that receives a racket grip/shank-forming region between opposed thickness-direction sides.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lower portion of the modified Zheng reinforcement assembly with a fitting region that receives the grip-forming panel region using Gabrielidis's known embracing-handle technique. Gabrielidis and Zheng are analogous hand-held ball-striking implements and both include a structural transition from a striking head/frame to a grip or shank. Gabrielidis teaches fitting opposed structural sections around the shank to locate and secure the handle; applying that technique to the reinforcement at Zheng's grip/head transition would use the fitting structure for its established positioning and load-transfer function. The dimensions and clearances could be selected using ordinary mechanical design skill, and the predictable result would be a reinforcement fitting that positively receives the grip-forming region. A skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because Gabrielidis expressly demonstrates the receiving/clamping relationship on a racket shank. The facts satisfy MPEP § 2143(I)(C). See KSR; MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Regarding claim 14, Zheng in view of Van Auken, Baltzley, and Gabrielidis, as modified for claims 1 and 13, teaches a reinforcement fitting portion that receives the grip-forming region. Claim 14 further specifies that the fitting portion has a C shape as viewed in the up-down direction.
The Gabrielidis fitting technique relied upon for claim 13 expressly uses that geometry. Gabrielidis states that handle 18 is formed from “a pair of C-shaped handle sections 20 and 22,” which face each other and embrace the shank (Col. 2, lines 39-59; Figs. 2-4). Gabrielidis claim 3 further confirms that each section has a C-shaped section with a substantially rectangular interior. Accordingly, the known fitting configuration adopted for claim 13 itself supplies a C-shaped receiving member.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Gabrielidis's C-shaped section as the fitting geometry in the claim-13 modification because the C shape is the disclosed structure by which Gabrielidis receives and partially surrounds the shank while leaving an opening for assembly and clamping. The same geometry would perform the same receiving and locating function when applied to the grip-forming region of the modified Zheng paddle. The mechanical relationship is simple and predictable, and Gabrielidis provides a reasonable expectation that the C-shaped fitting would operate successfully. Thus, the claim-13 known-technique rationale also produces the additional limitation of claim 14 and satisfies MPEP § 2143(I)(C). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417-18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments at pages 10-14 of the remarks filed August 26, 2026, with respect to the prior rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive as to the specific point that the previously applied Zheng/Van Auken combination does not itself teach a reinforcement portion having a central forming portion overlying the lower end of the hitting surface as now expressly recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, the previous rejection of claim 1 as framed in the Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Baltzley, as set forth above.
Baltzley cures the specific deficiency identified by Applicant. Baltzley is directed to a solid-faced paddle and teaches reinforcement strips at the handle-blade junction that overlie opposite faces of the paddle (p. 1, lines 29-43; Figs. 1-4). Baltzley further discloses rubber facing layers forming the active blade surface and teaches that the facing material may extend beneath the transverse reinforcement, while the reinforcement blades cover the facing-layer edges (p. 1, lines 60-92; Claim 2). Accordingly, unlike the previously relied-upon tennis-racket frame reinforcement, Baltzley expressly provides the missing structural relationship between a lower active paddle face and a connection-region reinforcement. The new rejection does not rely on Van Auken's throat skin as teaching reinforcement overlying the hitting surface; Van Auken is retained for the separate localized throat-junction reinforcement teaching.
Applicant's arguments concerning dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-11 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that these claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency from claim 1 and generally asserts that each dependent claim adds a further combination not disclosed or rendered obvious by the cited art. Amended claim 1 is rejected on the new ground above, and each additional limitation of claims 2, 3, and 5-11 is separately addressed in the corresponding rejection. Applicant has not identified a specific error in those dependent-claim mappings independent of the claim 1 issue. Claims 12-14 were newly presented and are addressed for the first time in the rejections above.
Applicant's argument that Zheng's engagement part lies below Zheng's hitting surface and therefore does not itself satisfy the newly added “overlying” limitation is consistent with the revised rejection. Zheng is not relied upon for that limitation. Baltzley supplies the face-overlying lower-blade reinforcement relationship, while Zheng remains the primary pickleball-paddle reference and Van Auken remains relied upon for localized throat reinforcement. Accordingly, the revised rejection addresses the distinction identified by Applicant without requiring the broad interpretation of Van Auken's string-bed structure challenged in the remarks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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