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
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2017/0354850) in view of Parenti (US 2013/0296085) and Moonen (US 2024/0367009). Note the basis for the rejections set forth in the office action filed May 22, 2025. Regarding the amendments to claims 1, 15, and 18, Parenti teaches a continuous taper between the interior and exterior surfaces of the spherical body in order to increase air flow into the shell to slow the ball down during play. Further, the inner and outer rings of the construction taught by the combination obviously define a transition therebetween.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2017/0354850) in view of Parenti (US 2013/0296085), Moonen (US 2024/0367009) and Kim (US 20187/0043217). Note the basis for the rejections set forth in the office action filed May 22, 2025.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2017/0354850) in view of Parenti (US 2013/0296085), Moonen (US 2024/0367009) and Newcomb (US 11,491,374). Note the basis for the rejections set forth in the office action filed May 22, 2025.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mooney (US 2024/0367009) in view of Parenti (US 2013/0296085). Note the basis for the rejections set forth in the office action filed May 22, 2025. Regarding the amendments to claims 1, 15, and 18, Parenti teaches a continuous taper between the interior and exterior surfaces of the spherical body in order to increase air flow into the shell to slow the ball down during play. Further, the inner and outer rings of the construction taught by the combination obviously defines a transition therebetween.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moonen (US 2024/0367009) in view of Parenti (US 2013/0296085) and Kim (US 2018/0043217). Note the basis for the rejections set forth in the office action filed May 22, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the combination of Chen in view of Moonen and Parenti, the applicant contends that Moonen does not teach an inner ring having an inset depth relative to the exterior surface and extending beyond the interior surface. The applicant points to annotated Figure 19A of the instant invention in showing the continuous taper of the hole from the outer ring to the inner ring. The applicant states that Moonen teaches additive support ribs provided over the holes on the interior surface of the ball and contends that the ribs are not tapered to define the continuous taper from the outer to the inner rings. Note Argument B. However, this argument is not persuasive as the rejection of the claims 1, 15, and 18 is over the combination of Chen in view of Moonen and Parenti or alternatively Moonen in view of Parenti. Moonen teaches that it is known in the art of pickleballs to provide the interior surface of the spherical body with rim ribs that extend into the hollowed space of the spherical body. The rim ribs define an inner ring that has an inset depth relative to the exterior surface such that the inner ring extends beyond the interior surface and into the hollowed space as recited. For example, the rim ribs are something that is inserted into the hollowed space such that they extend beyond the interior surface and obviously define an inset depth into the hollowed space of the ball. Parenti particularly teaches that it is known in the art of balls having holes in the surface thereof to provide a continuous taper from the exterior to the interior surface of the ball in order to increase air flow into the shell to slow the ball down during play. Given this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a continuous taper from the outer ring to the inner ring in the ball of Moonen in order to increase air flow into the shell to slow the ball down during play.
The applicant also contends that the combination of Moonen in view of Parenti does not teach an inner ring and an inset depth relative to the exterior surface and extending beyond the interior surface. Note Argument C. The applicant states that Moonen provides an inner ring that extends only to the interior surface and a separate additive rib disposed on the interior surface. However, this argument is also not persuasive. Instant claims 1, 15, and 18 all define an inner ring having an inset depth relative to the exterior surface such that the inner ring extends beyond the interior surface and into the hollowed space. This limitation is met by the separate additive rib of Moonen in combination with the continuous taper as taught by Parenti. As noted above, the rib of Moonen is inserted into the hollowed space of the ball and thus, defines an inset depth relative to the exterior surface such that the rib extends beyond the interior surface and into the hollowed space. Further, providing the continuous taper as taught by Parenti that extends from the exterior surface to the rim rib of Moonen defines the outer ring and inner ring with the continuous taper as recited.
The applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Chen in view of Moonen as Moonen particularly teaches against forming the pickleball with the seamed construction as taught by Chen. Note Argument D. The applicant states that Moonen teaches a one piece seamless hollow ball for his construction and that the seamed construction provides a weak point in the pickleball. However, this argument is also not persuasive as the rejection uses the combination of Chen in view of Moonen where Moonen is relied upon merely for its teaching that it is known in the art of pickleballs to provide the holes with ribs in order to provide increased strength to the interior wall of the ball at the location of each hole. Note paragraph [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pickleball of Chen with ribs around the holes in order to provide increased strength to the interior wall of the ball at the location of each hole.
The applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Moonen in view of Parenti as Parenti teaches a flexible walled ball used for the sports of baseball, softball and golf and Moonen teaches a pickleball that is not pliable or flexible. The applicant also states that Parenti teaches that the tapered holes are provided in the ball of Parenti in order to slow the ball down during play and limit flight distance which would not be desirable for the ball of Moonen. Note Argument E. However, these argument are also not persuasive. Moonen teaches a pickleball construction comprising ribs that are intended to strengthen the interior wall of the ball at the location of each hole. Parenti reveals that it is known in the art of balls having apertures therein to provide the apertures with angled walls that extend from an exterior surface to the interior surface. Note paragraph [0014] and Figures 5 and 6 of Parenti. Parenti particularly teaches that the ball is intended for practicing batting, hitting or swinging. Note paragraph [0004]. Further, Parenti states that the ball is intended for strength and conditioning and use in confined spaces. Parenti adds that the angled walls slow the ball down and reduce flight distance. Parenti also states that the ball can be used in a variety of sports, including softball, baseball, cricket, soccer, tennis, golf and any other sport in which a ball is used and for training purposes. Note paragraph [0006]. Similarly, the ball of Moonen is intended for hitting purposes and also in a sport in which a ball is used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ball of Moonen with the continuous taper as taught by Parenti in order to slow the ball down during play and limit flight distance and permit training or conditioning of a user in a sport which includes a ball.
The applicant also argues that Parenti, Newcomb and Kim all lack the teaching for the inner ring with the inset depth relative to the exterior surface such that the inner ring extends beyond the interior surface and into the hollowed space as recite. Note Argument F. However, this argument is not persuasive as Moonen teaches a ring surrounding the holes in the ball that defines an inset depth relative to the exterior surface such that the inner ring extends beyond the interior surface and into the hollowed space as recited. It is noted that Parenti is relied upon merely for its teaching that it is known in the art of balls having apertures in the surface thereof to provide a continuous taper to the wall in order to effect the aerodynamics of the ball. It is noted that the reference to Newcomb is relied upon for its teaching that it is known in the art of balls having apertures in the surface thereof to provide first and second hemispheres that are identical. It is noted that the reference to Kim is relied upon for its teaching that it is known in the art of hollow, spherical sports balls having recesses therein to provide the walls of the recesses with either a sloping or stepped transition.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN B WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/STEVEN B WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711