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 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/581,927, filed September 11, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed January 3, 2025 and 3 April 3, 2025 have been considered. The references cited therein have been reviewed to the extent they comply with 37 CFR
1.97 and 1.98. All properly submitted IDS references have been considered in the preparation of this Office action.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (WO 2022/217045 A1, "Davis") in view of Johnson et al. (US 2002/0144767 A1, "Johnson").
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a paddle, a core, and opposed laminate layers. Davis discloses "a paddle comprising a striking portion defining a central axis, a handle portion, and a tapered portion contiguous with both the handle portion and the striking portion" and "a sandwich structure comprising a core layer and a first skin coupled with the core layer" ([0005]). Davis further discloses that "the core layer may be a honeycomb structure including one or more cells" ([0006]). In the detailed embodiment, Davis discloses that "the sandwich panel 102 is formed of a core structure 118 interposed between a first composite skin 120 and a second composite skin 122" ([0065]) and that "the first composite skin 120 and the second composite skin 122 are coupled to the core structure 118 such that the core structure 118 is interposed between" the skins ([0070]). These teachings establish the scope and content of the prior art because the composite skins correspond to laminate layers, and the core structure corresponds to the claimed core under BRI.
Davis also teaches holes through the core. Davis discloses that "the core structure 118 includes a plurality of cells that extend through (e.g., perforate) the core structure 118" and that the core may be "a honeycomb core" ([0072]). This satisfies the recited holes extending from the first side to the second side under BRI because the claim does not require drilled, circular, or fiber-specific holes.
Davis does not expressly teach fibers extending through at least one of the holes and coupled to both laminate layers. Johnson teaches this difference. Johnson discloses a sandwich structure "formed with outside skins of a polymer matrix composite and an internal core" and specifically "Z-axis fiber reinforcement through the composite laminate and normal to the plane of the polymer matrix composite skins" ([0002]). Johnson explains that Z-direction reinforcements improve failure mechanisms and that "by adding 16 3-D reinforcements per square inch" core laminate compressive strength can exceed 2500 psi ([0006]). Johnson further discloses that the Z-axis fiber deposition machine provides "the deposition of 3-D Z-axis groupings of fiber filaments" and that "Groupings of fiber filaments are installed automatically by this machine into the preform" ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis by incorporating Johnson's Z-axis fiber reinforcement through Davis's honeycomb or core holes so that the fibers couple the opposed composite skins. A person of ordinary skill would have made the modification to improve skin-core attachment, delamination resistance, and structural integrity of the lightweight sandwich paddle. The result would have been predictable because Johnson teaches the same through-thickness reinforcement function in sandwich structures. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D). The rationale is also supported by MPEP § 2144(II), because Johnson identifies the expected advantage of improved failure performance.
Regarding claim 2, Davis teaches the additional limitation that the first and second laminate layers are thermoplastic. Davis discloses that the fabric layers may be "impregnated with a resin selected from epoxy resin, polyester resin, vinyl ester resin, phenolic resin, bio resin, thermoplastic resin, or any combination thereof" ([0012]). Davis also discloses that the first through fourth fabric layers may be impregnated with "thermoplastic resin" and may be "prepreg sheets" ([0018]). Under BRI, a laminate layer having a thermoplastic resin matrix is thermoplastic; the claim does not require a pure thermoplastic sheet.
It would have been obvious to select Davis's disclosed thermoplastic resin option for the laminate layers because it was one of the finite resin options expressly disclosed for the same paddle laminate layers. This is a predictable selection of a known material option and, to the extent needed, material selection under MPEP § 2144.07. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 4, Davis teaches a handle continuously connected to the core. Davis discloses that the sandwich panel "includes a striking portion 110, a handle portion 112, and a tapered portion 114 extending between and contiguous with both the striking portion 110 and the handle portion 112" ([0065]). Davis also discloses that "the handle portion may comprise a material that forms the second perimeter geometry" ([0009]). These teachings correspond to a handle continuously connected to the core under BRI because the claim does not require a separate monolithic handle-core molding step or any particular handle cross-section.
To the extent Davis is viewed as not expressly using the exact phrase "continuously connected," the difference would have been an obvious engineering implementation. A person of ordinary skill would have made the core and handle transition continuous to provide structural continuity, simplify fabrication, and avoid weakness at the handle and head transition. This is making a known structure integral or continuous where the function remains predictable. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B) and (E), In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965), and In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 5, Davis teaches laminate layers formed of pre-preg fibers in a thermoplastic resin. Davis discloses that "all of the first fabric layer, the second fabric layer, the third fabric layer, and the fourth fabric layer may be prepreg sheets" and that such layers may be impregnated with "thermoplastic resin" ([0018]). Davis further explains that "prepreg" refers to "fibers pre-impregnated with resin" ([0079]). These quotations map directly to the claimed pre-preg fibers in a thermoplastic resin.
It would have been obvious to use the disclosed prepreg thermoplastic option in the Davis and Johnson paddle because Davis teaches the option for the same laminate layers and Johnson provides the through-thickness reinforcement improvement. The rationale is supported by KSR v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 7, Davis teaches secondary layers including pre-preg fibers in thermoplastic resin. Davis discloses a multi-layer composite skin in which "the first fabric layer, the second fabric layer, the third fabric layer, the fourth fabric layer or any combination thereof" may be prepreg sheets and may be impregnated with "thermoplastic resin" ([0018]). Davis also teaches that "the first fabric layer is outward facing such that the second fabric layer is interposed between the first fabric layer and the honeycomb core structure" and that "the third fabric layer is outward facing such that the fourth fabric layer is interposed between third fabric layer and the core structure" ([0014]). Under BRI, the claimed secondary layers are not limited to applicant's preferred damping layers, and the claim does not require viscoelastic material.
It would have been obvious to use Davis's additional prepreg thermoplastic layers as secondary layers because they are known composite layup layers used in the same paddle skin and core structure, with each layer performing its predictable reinforcement and lamination function. This is combining known prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson teaches that the core includes a thermoplastic material. Johnson discloses that "The core 22 will be the central section of the sandwich" and that "The core can be made of urethane or PVC foam, or other similar foams" ([0031]). PVC is a thermoplastic material, and the claim only requires that the core include a thermoplastic material.
It would have been obvious to use PVC foam or another thermoplastic foam core in the modified paddle because such materials were known lightweight sandwich-core materials suitable for the same structural purpose. This is simple substitution of one known core material for another to obtain predictable results and material selection. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc.; Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.; MPEP § 2143(I)(B); MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson teaches a core density less than or equal to 5.0 lbs/cu ft. Johnson discloses that the core can be made of urethane or PVC foam "in densities from 2 lbs. per cubic foot to higher densities approaching 12 lbs. per cubic foot" ([0031]). The claimed value of less than or equal to 5.0 lbs/cu ft lies within Johnson's disclosed 2 to about 12 lbs/cu ft range.
It would have been obvious to select a core density within Johnson's disclosed range for the Revolin and Johnson paddle because Johnson teaches the general conditions and available density range for foam sandwich cores. The claimed range is inside the prior-art range, and no criticality or unexpected result is of record for the 5.0 lbs/cu ft upper limit. This rationale is supported by In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Johnson, as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Zhou (US 20240024745 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Davis teaches the first and second laminate layers and their edge regions, but Davis and Johnson do not expressly teach that the laminate edges are fused together. Zhou teaches the edge integration. Zhou discloses that "the upper panel and the lower panel are arranged in an integrally formed structure, and evenly wrap the outer side of the inner composite panel" ([0005]). Zhou also teaches that the upper and lower panels are made from "a fiber prepreg" and the resin can be "a thermoplastic resin material" ([0006]), and that the upper panel, lower panel, inner composite panel, and edge wrapping strip are "formed by hot pressing at a high temperature of 140° C." ([0011]). These disclosures teach or at least suggest laminate edges joined or integrated together at the paddle perimeter under BRI.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Davis and Johnson paddle by using Zhou's hot-pressed, integrally formed upper and lower panels to join the laminate edges. A person of ordinary skill would have done so to close and reinforce the paddle edge while using known prepreg and thermoplastic materials. The result would have been predictable because Zhou applies the technique to a pickleball racket having the same core-panel context. This is applying a known technique to a known paddle structure ready for improvement. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc., MPEP § 2143(I)(D), and MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B) as supporting precedent for making adjacent structures integral where the facts support the modification.
Regarding claim 6, Davis and Johnson provide the base paddle and Z-axis reinforced core and skin structure but do not expressly teach the claimed joined or fused edge over the core edge. Davis teaches first and second laminate layers coupled to opposite sides of a core, and Zhou teaches the laminate edges joined or integrated over the outer edge of the core. Zhou discloses that the racket body includes upper and lower panels and an inner composite panel, where "the upper panel and the lower panel are arranged in an integrally formed structure, and evenly wrap the outer side of the inner composite panel" ([0005]). Zhou further discloses an edge wrapping strip located "between a side edge of the inner composite panel and the upper panel" and between the side edge and lower panel ([0005]), with the assembly formed by hot pressing ([0011]). Zhou satisfies the edge-over-core integration.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Zhou's edge-wrapped hot-pressed structure into the Davis and Johnson paddle to reinforce the perimeter and close the exposed core edge. This uses a known edge integration technique to improve a similar paddle structure in the same way under KSR v. Teleflex Inc. and MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Johnson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marvin (US 2017/0021247 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Davis teaches core openings or open regions in a core. Davis discloses that "FIG. 12 shows a first paddle design 306 using a core 308 formed of an additive manufacturing gyroid infill 310" and that another core configuration includes "a honeycomb inner core 318 and a gyroid outer core 320" ([0085]). Davis further discloses "a core 322 formed in a spiral 324 having a resulting spider web type shape 326" ([0086]). Under BRI, open spaces defined by gyroid, honeycomb, or spider-web core geometry can satisfy an open section in the core where the section is surrounded by remaining perimeter core material.
To the extent a further teaching of an opening in a core is required, Marvin teaches that "a portion of the core layer is then removed to form an opening in the core" and that a "piece of second material is shaped to match the opening and assembled into the opening" ([0005]). Marvin also discloses that a center portion of the core layer may be cut out or otherwise removed to form an opening ([0015]). This confirms that using an open core section in a pickleball paddle core was known.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an open core section in the Davis and Johnson paddle to tune playing characteristics, weight distribution, and rebound response. Marvin expressly teaches that using different materials and density distribution can adjust the center of balance and sweet spot ([0006]). This is applying a known technique to a similar pickleball paddle to obtain predictable performance tuning. See KSR, KSR v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Regarding claim 11, Marvin teaches a center portion formed of material with a different density than surrounding core material. Marvin discloses a core made from "at least two different materials and/or two material areas with different densities" ([0004]). Marvin further discloses that "the material that forms the central area of the core is denser and more rigid than the outer area" and that, in other embodiments, "a lighter, less dense material can be in the center" ([0006]). Under BRI, "the material of the core" is reasonably read as the surrounding or remaining core material.
It would have been obvious to incorporate Marvin's different-density center portion into the Davis and Johnson paddle to adjust sweet spot, balance, power, and control. The expected result is expressly taught by Marvin. This is a known technique used to improve a similar paddle in the same way under KSR v. Teleflex Inc. and MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Johnson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thurman (US 2021/0252356 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Davis teaches through cells in the paddle core, and Johnson teaches through-thickness reinforcement. The combination does not expressly require the outer perimeter to have a higher hole density than an inward area.
However, Thurman teaches a higher density of holes or cells adjacent the outer perimeter than inward of the perimeter. Thurman discloses that a non-orthogonal lattice has "a first density of unit cells inward a perimeter edge of the inner layer and a second density of unit cells adjacent the outer perimeter of the inner layer, the second density of unit cells being greater than the first density of unit cells" ([0262]). Under BRI, the claimed hole density reads on density of through cells or openings in a paddle core; the claim does not require applicant's exact hole pattern or Z-axis fiber manufacturing method therefor Thurman supplies that relative perimeter-density arrangement in a pickleball paddle lattice.
It would have been obvious to use Thurman's higher perimeter cell density in the Davis and Johnson paddle to tune stiffness, weight distribution, and impact response at the perimeter. This is applying a known paddle-core lattice-density technique to a similar paddle under KSR v. Teleflex Inc., MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Rosen et al. (US 6416432 B1, "Rosen").
Regarding claim 13, Davis teaches a paddle having a core and first and second laminate layers. Davis discloses "a core structure 118 interposed between a first composite skin 120 and a second composite skin 122" ([0065]) and that "the core structure 118 is interposed between the first composite skin 120 and the second composite skin 122" ([0070]). The composite skins are laminate layers under BRI.
Davis does not expressly teach first and second secondary layers disposed between the core and the respective laminate layers where the secondary layers include viscoelastic material. Rosen teaches this damping-layer concept. Rosen discloses a sports racket frame made of "an energy absorbing structural laminate" including "a viscoelastic layer disposed between the first and second layers such that shear strains are substantially distributed throughout the viscoelastic layer when a load is applied to the structural laminate" (Abstract; Col. 2, lines 27-41). Rosen further teaches that the structure can contain "from 2 to 3 viscoelastic layers" (Col. 11, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis's paddle laminate stack by incorporating Rosen's viscoelastic damping layers between the core and the respective laminate layers. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized Rosen as analogous sports-striking-implement damping art and would have expected the viscoelastic layers to reduce vibration transmitted from ball impact. This is use of a known damping technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc.; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006); MPEP § 2143(I)(C); MPEP § 2144(II).
Regarding claim 16, Davis teaches first and second laminate layers including pre-preg thermoplastic material. Davis discloses that the first through fourth fabric layers "may be prepreg sheets" and may be impregnated with "thermoplastic resin" ([0018]). Davis also defines prepreg as "fibers pre-impregnated with resin" ([0079]).
Rosen supplies the viscoelastic secondary-layer concept for claim 13, and Davis supplies the pre-preg thermoplastic laminate material for claim 16. It would have been obvious to use Davis's disclosed prepreg thermoplastic laminate layers in the Davis and Rosen paddle because those layers are expressly taught for the same paddle laminate structure. This is combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under KSR v. Teleflex Inc. and MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Rosen, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Filippini (US 2024/0066371 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Davis and Rosen teach the base paddle and viscoelastic secondary-layer structure but do not expressly teach opposed recessed cavities receiving the laminate layers. Filippini teaches recessed cavities on opposite paddle sides configured to receive skin or face layers. Filippini discloses "a recessed area on opposite molded paddles side to receive a pre-cured and textured removable/replaceable face/skin" ([0024]). Filippini also teaches that the head includes "a cavity that receives the removable and replaceable textured face" (Claim 14). Thus, Filippini supplies the recessed-face construction in a composite molded pickleball paddle. Under BRI, modifying the head/core region of Davis's layered paddle to include shallow opposed recessed cavities that receive the laminate or skin layers satisfies the claim because the claim does not require a particular recess depth, manufacturing method, or removable face construction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Davis and Rosen paddle to include Filippini's recessed cavities on each side to receive the laminate or skin layers, thereby controlling skin placement, protecting the surface layer, and providing an integrated face construction. This is applying a known paddle-face skin placement technique to a similar molded paddle under KSR v. Teleflex Inc., MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Rosen, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Fox et al. (US 2017/0136325 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Rosen teaches the viscoelastic damping-layer structure, but Rosen does not clearly identify every material recited in claim 15. Fox supplies listed damping materials, including polyurethane, which corresponds to urethanes, and natural rubber.
Fox teaches damping materials selected from the claimed material list. Fox discloses a game paddle having sound-absorbing filling and teaches that the filling may comprise "an open or closed-cell foam, gel, silicone, aramid polymer, polyurethane, natural or synthetic rubber, or any other material" ([0010]). Fox further states that the disclosed subject matter provides "sound absorption and reduction" without significantly detracting from play characteristics ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to select Fox's known paddle sound and vibration damping materials for Rosen's viscoelastic layer in the Davis and Rosen paddle because the materials are used for the same damping purpose in a game paddle. This is material selection and substitution of an art-recognized same-purpose damping material. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc.; Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.; In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980); MPEP § 2143(I)(B); MPEP § 2144.07; MPEP § 2144.06.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Zhou.
Regarding claim 17, Davis teaches a paddle having first and second laminate layers and first and second secondary layers including pre-preg material. Davis discloses a sandwich paddle with "a core structure 118 interposed between a first composite skin 120 and a second composite skin 122" ([0065]). Davis teaches that a "nonwoven substrate may be located between the first skin and the core layer" and between the second skin and core layer, and that the substrate may comprise a polymeric material, including polypropylene or polyester (Claims 33-36). Davis further teaches that fabric layers may be prepreg sheets and impregnated with thermoplastic resin ([0018]) and defines prepreg as fibers pre-impregnated with resin ([0079]). Under BRI, the secondary layers of claim 17 are not required to be viscoelastic.
To the extent Davis is not relied upon for the thermoplastic core, Zhou teaches that the upper and lower honeycomb panels in the inner composite panel may be made from "PP polypropylene" ([0007]) Zhou also teaches that the upper and lower panels are made from fiber prepreg and that the interior of the fiber prepreg may be "a thermoplastic resin material" ([0006]).
Davis does not expressly teach the laminate edges fused to each other over the outer edge of the core. Zhou supplies that edge construction. Zhou discloses that "the upper panel and the lower panel are arranged in an integrally formed structure, and evenly wrap the outer side of the inner composite panel" ([0005]). Zhou also discloses that the upper panel, lower panel, inner composite panel, and edge wrapping strip are "formed by hot pressing at a high temperature of 140° C." ([0011]). These disclosures teach or at least suggest the laminate edges being joined, integrated, or fused over the core edge under BRI.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis's prepreg thermoplastic paddle construction using Zhou's thermoplastic honeycomb and hot-pressed, integrally formed upper and lower panel edge wrapping to close and reinforce the outer edge of the core. The modification applies a known edge integration technique to a similar thermoplastic and prepreg pickleball racket structure and would have yielded the predictable result of an integrated reinforced perimeter. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc.; MPEP § 2143(I)(C) and (D); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Davis teaches pre-preg material including fibers that are unidirectional in the laminate layers and secondary layers. Davis discloses that the fabric layers may include "a unidirectional weave" ([0012]) and that the first, second, third, and fourth fabric layers may be prepreg sheets ([0018]). Davis further discloses that "the first fabric layer may be formed of a unidirectional weave" and "the third fabric layer may be formed of a unidirectional weave" ([0028]).
Zhou supplies the edge integration for the base claim 17 structure, and Revolin supplies the unidirectional prepreg material. It would have been obvious to use unidirectional fibers in the laminate and secondary layers to control directional strength and stiffness in the paddle layup. This is using known composite ply orientation elements according to known methods to yield predictable mechanical properties under KSR v. Teleflex Inc. and MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 20, Davis teaches available fiber direction options for different layer sets. Davis discloses multiple fiber orientation options, including "a unidirectional weave," "a bidirectional weave," "+45/-45-degree weave," and "90/0-degree weave" ([0012], [0018]). Davis further discloses that the first and third fabric layers may have first or third threads positioned within five degrees of parallel with the central axis ([0028]), while the second and fourth fabric layers may be positioned with x-direction or y-direction threads within ten degrees of parallel with the central axis ([0029]).
The difference between the prior art and claim 20 is the selected relative fiber directions for the different layer sets. Davis teaches the available orientations and layered paddle structure. It would have been obvious to select different known orientations for different layer sets to tune bending, torsional response, and strength of the laminate. This is a predictable selection of known composite ply orientations based on ordinary design incentives. See KSR v. Teleflex Inc. and MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and (F).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Zhou, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Johnson.
Regarding claim 18, Johnson teaches Z-axis fibers connecting first and second laminate layers through holes and intervening layers. Johnson discloses sandwich composite structures having "Z-axis fiber reinforcement through the composite laminate and normal to the plane of the polymer matrix composite skins" ([0002]). Johnson discloses that the Z-axis deposition machine provides "the deposition of 3-D Z-axis groupings of fiber filaments" and that "Groupings of fiber filaments are installed automatically by this machine into the preform" ([0032]). Johnson also discloses that failures commonly arise from "failure of the bond or adhesive capability between the core and the composite skins" ([0004]), and that 3-D reinforcement improves failure mechanisms ([0006]).
Davis and Zhou teach the base thermoplastic, prepreg, and fused-edge paddle structure of claim 17. They do not expressly teach Z-axis fibers connecting the laminate layers through the core holes and secondary-layer apertures. Johnson supplies the through-thickness fiber reinforcement. It would have been obvious to incorporate Johnson's Z-axis fiber groupings into the Davis and Zhou paddle stack to improve skin-core bonding, interlaminar strength, and delamination resistance. Where a Z-axis fiber passes through the stack, apertures in intervening secondary layers would necessarily be formed or would have been obvious to provide to permit the Z-axis fibers to pass through the layer stack. This is applying a known through-thickness reinforcement technique to a known paddle sandwich structure ready for improvement under KSR v. Teleflex Inc. and MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
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