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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because reference numbers must not be enclosed within outlines (e.g., encircled). In Figs. 8 and 15, the outlines around reference numbers should be removed.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: “40” in ¶ 46; “259” in ¶ 53; “300”, “162”, “262”, and “120” in ¶ 54; “216” and “141” in ¶ 57; “216” in ¶ 61; “254” in ¶ 68; “170” in ¶ 72; “255” in ¶ 77; “178”, “179”, “168”, “181”, “182”, “183”, “185”, “186”, “188”, “189”, “191”, and “192” in ¶ 78; “163” in ¶ 79; “256”, “257”, and “255” in ¶ 79; “141” in ¶¶ 82-83; “151”, “251”, and “141” in ¶ 84; “256” in ¶ 86; “211” and “210” in ¶ 87; “243” and “244” in ¶ 88; “256” in ¶ 96; “238” in ¶¶ 104-105 and 109.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “109” in Figs. 2 and 4; “158” in Fig. 5; “172” in Fig. 7; “224” in Figs. 12 and 13; “226” in Fig. 14; “227” in Fig. 15; and “231” in Fig. 16.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 1:1, “continuation” should read --continuation-in-part--, consistent with the Application Data Sheet filed February 5, 2025.
In ¶ 2:6, it appears that “relay” should read --rely--.
In ¶ 17, “chamfersof” should read --chamfers of--.
In ¶ 31, “a another” should read --another--.
In ¶ 78:12-13, reference number “187” is used twice, once to denote a handle exterior rear surface and once to denote a frame rear interior surface. (Reference number “187” is shown only once in the drawings; see Fig. 15. Different reference numbers should be used for different features.)
In ¶ 78:13-14, reference number “189” is used twice, once to denote a throat interior rear surface and once to denote a handle interior rear surface. Reference number “189” is not used in the drawings. (See drawing objections above.)
In ¶ 86:12-13, it appears that “(229?, 230?)” should read --(229, 230)--. Applicant should confirm that these are the intended reference numbers. No new matter should be entered.
In ¶ 91, “Adheisive” should read --Adhesive--.
In ¶ 92:2, a closed parenthesis should be added after “(218, 219”.
In ¶¶ 114 and 170, should each instance of “polyetherim (103, 203)ide” read --polyetherimide--? (See note on rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 1, “the pickleball body” should read --the pickleball paddle body-- for consistency with claim 1, line 2.
In claim 2, line 3, “of second location” should read --of a second location--.
In claim 7, line 2, “the the” should read --the--.
In claim 15, line 2, it appears the “protrude” should read --protruding--.
In claim 16, line 16, “the pickleball body” should read --the pickleball paddle body-- for consistency with claim 16, line 2.
In claim 16, line 17, “of second location” should read --of a second location--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 4, 10, 12-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the rim inner perimeter” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears that “the rim inner perimeter” should read --the inner rim perimeter-- (consistent with claim 3, line 2).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “protruding from the frame interior surface into the frame interior surface” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear in what sense the cavity structures protrude both “from” and “into” the frame interior surface. Should “protruding from the frame interior surface into the frame interior surface” read --protruding from the frame interior surface into the frame interior cavity--? Claims 12-15 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 10.
Further regarding claim 15, the term “such as” in line 2 (“such as ribs and nubs”) renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether the claim is limited to the recited ribs and nubs. If not, it is unclear what other stand off features would fall within the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a group consisting of include” in lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the group is closed (due to the phrase “consisting of”) or open (due to the open-ended term “include”). If the group is open, then the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(h), subsection I. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by “polyetherim (103, 203)ide,” which is mentioned twice, in lines 9 and 11. As best the examiner can determine, this does not appear to describe a recognizable material. Should “polyetherim (103, 203)ide” read --polyetherimide--?
Claim 19 is rejected in view of its dependency from claim 18.
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 1-7, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brents et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0032141, hereinafter Brents) in view of Yu (U.S. Patent No. 5,326,097, hereinafter Yu).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 161, Brents discloses a pickleball paddle (400, Figs. 4A-B; ¶¶ 58-64) comprising:
a pickleball paddle body (400) comprising a frame (440, ¶ 62), a head subassembly (ball striking portion 410), and a grip (430);
wherein the frame (440) comprises a rim (hoop portion 446), a y-shaped throat (transition section 450), a frame aperture defined within the rim and y-shaped throat (for retaining the ball striking portion 410; see Figs. 4A-B), and a handle (420, ¶ 64) extending from the y-shaped throat (450) to a butt end (425, ¶ 61);
wherein the head subassembly (410) is positioned with the frame aperture and comprises at least a core (415, ¶ 59), a front hitting surface (412, Fig. 4B), and a rear hitting surface (¶ 59);
wherein the grip (430) comprises a grip upper end adjacent to the y-shaped throat (450), a grip butt (427) distal from the y-shaped throat (450), and a grip body between the grip upper end and grip butt configured to cover the handle (“handle portion 420 has been finished with a grip 430,” ¶ 60) (claim 1); and
wherein the rim (446) and y-shaped throat (450) define a frame top rim region (at top in Fig. 4A), a first frame lateral side (at left in Fig. 4A) and a second frame lateral side (at right in Fig. 4A) each connected to the frame top rim region, and a bottom rim region (at bottom of head in Fig. 4A) bounded by the y-shaped throat opposite the frame top region. An X-axis can be defined as extending from the first frame lateral side through the geometric center to the second frame lateral side (i.e., from left to right in Fig. 4A). A Y-axis can be defined as extending perpendicular to the X-axis from the frame top rim region through the geometric center to the butt end (i.e., from top to bottom in Fig. 4A). A Z-axis can be defined as extending perpendicular to both the X-axis and the Y-axis also extending through the geometric center from the front hitting surface to the rear hitting surface (i.e., into the plane of the paper in Fig. 4A). The X-axis and the Y-axis inherently define an XY plane (claims 2 and 16).
Brents does not explicitly disclose that the frame comprises first and second frame members joined at first and second coupling surfaces.
However, Yu teaches a sports racket (Figs. 1-3) comprising a frame that is designed to be easily assembled (col. 1:29-31). The frame comprises a first frame member (11) having a first coupling surface (col. 2:3-6) with a first frame member perimeter shape (see Fig. 3) and a second frame member (100) having a second coupling surface (col. 2:3-6) with a second frame member perimeter shape (see Figs. 2-3); wherein the first coupling surface is joined to the second coupling surface to form the frame (see Fig. 2; col. 2:3-17), and the first frame member perimeter shape joined to the second frame perimeter shape forms a frame outer perimeter around a rim (head portion 11), y-shaped throat (where head portion 11 meets handle 12), and handle (12). Yu teaches that this configuration of the frame permits easy assembly of a head subassembly (i.e., a ball striking surface) within the racket frame (col. 1:29-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Brents by forming the frame from first and second frame members joined at first and second coupling surfaces, as taught by Yu, in order to simplify assembly of the paddle.
Regarding claims 3-4, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2. As shown in Figs. 4A-B, Brents further teaches the rim (446) comprises an outer perimeter that is a portion of the frame outer perimeter and an inner rim perimeter centerward of the outer rim perimeter that at least partially surrounds the frame aperture (claim 3); wherein a rim width is the shortest distance between any point on the outer rim perimeter to a point on the inner rim perimeter, wherein the rim width is measured perpendicular to a tangent to the point on the outer rim perimeter (see annotated Fig. 4A below) (claim 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5-7, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 3. Brents further teaches the rim (446) comprises a front outer rim surface (visible in front view of Fig. 4A) extending centerward from the outer rim perimeter and a rear outer rim surface (visible in rear view of Fig. 4B) opposite from and parallel to the front outer rim surface extending centerward from the outer rim perimeter (claim 5); wherein a rim thickness is measured perpendicularly from the front outer rim surface to the rear outer rim surface (i.e., from front to back of the paddle frame) (claim 6); wherein the rim inner perimeter is further defined by centerward edges on the front outer rim surface and the rear outer rim surface (i.e., the edges where the rim inner perimeter intersects the front and rear outer rim surfaces, these edges being centerward from the outer rim perimeter) (claim 7).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Brents further teaches the frame (440) is comprised of a thermoplastic material, specifically polycarbonate (“a stiff but lightweight polycarbonate material,” ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 18. Brents further teaches the thermoplastic material may additionally be fiber filled (“graphite or carbon fibers,” ¶ 62; “Graphene fibers,” ¶ 69). While Brents is silent with respect to the percentage of fibers by volume, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a suitable fiber percentage by volume as a matter of routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, affecting strength and stiffness of the resulting paddle frame. Particularly considering the wide range of percentages by volume, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success employing fibers in a range of 5% and 35% by volume. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Brents by configuring the thermoplastic material to be fiber filled in a range between 5% and 35% by volume, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 16. Brents further teaches the paddle body (400) comprises a body width, a body length, and a body mass, wherein an exemplary body length is in a range between 15.0 inches to 16.0 inches (¶ 98), which falls within the claimed range of 14 inches to 17.5 inches; an exemplary body width is in a range of 8.0 inches to 8.5 inches (¶ 99), which falls within the claimed range of 6.5 to 8.5 inches; and a body mass is in the range of 7.5 ounces to 8.3 ounces (¶ 103), or about 213 grams to 235 grams, which falls within the claimed range of 198 grams to 270 grams.
Claims 8-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brents in view of Yu, in further view of Poschenrieder (US Patent No. 5,232,220).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claims 1 and 16, respectively. Yu does not explicitly teach that the first and second frame members have an identical structure. However, Poschenrieder teaches a similar two-piece frame for a sports racket (see Figs. 1-3) in which “[t]o simplify production, the two frame halves 6, 7 are designed, or formed, identical and symmetrical to longitudinal axis L,” so that “two halves 6 and 7 produced with the same mold can be connected to one another for the frame.” Col. 3:46-52. To accomplish this, Poschenrieder teaches first and second frame members (6, 7, Figs. 2-4) having an identical structure (col. 3:46-52; see also col. 5:28-30), wherein the first and second frame members (6, 7) are positioned such that the first frame member (6) mirrors the second frame member (7) about a coupling plane between them forming the frame (col. 2:11-28), wherein the coupling plane is generally parallel to the XY plane (see Fig. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Brents by configuring the first and second frame members to have an identical structure mirrored about a coupling plane between them which is parallel to the XY plane, as taught by Poschenrieder, in order to simplify production by permitting both frame members to be produced with the same mold.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 8. Yu further teaches that the frame comprises a frame interior cavity defined by a first frame member interior surface and a second frame member interior surface that together form a frame interior surface. See Yu, Fig. 2-3. See also Poschenrieder, Figs. 3-8.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Yu further teaches the frame comprises a plurality of interior cavity structures on and protruding from the frame interior surface into the frame interior cavity. See Fig. 3 of Yu, showing projections (14) as well as interior struts within the handle (12). See also Poschenrieder, Figs. 3-8.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 9. Yu further teaches the frame interior cavity is open centerward into the frame aperture before a head subassembly (20, 30, Fig. 2) is assembled into the paddle body (see Fig. 2, the frame interior cavity being open centerward to hold the ball striking surface subassembly 20, 30 within the frame aperture). When modify Brents in view of Yu as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the frame interior cavity to open centerward into the frame aperture, as taught by Yu, before the head subassembly of Brents is assembled into the pickleball paddle body, in order to simplify assembly of the paddle.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Yu further teaches the plurality of interior cavity structures are reinforcing structures (see struts in handle 12, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 10. Yu further teaches the plurality of interior cavity structures are connecting structures (see projections 14, Fig. 3). The term “bonding” is understood to mean “joining securely, as with glue or cement.”2 Yu does not explicitly teach that the connecting structures are bonded as with glue or cement. However, Poschenrieder further teaches internal connecting structures (8, 10, Figs 5-6) that are additionally bonded by gluing (col. 4:58-63). Poschenrieder is thus understood to teach interior bonding structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Brents by including interior bonding structures as taught by Poschenrieder, in order to ensure a firm and durable connection between the two frame members.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 12. Yu further teaches the reinforcing structures comprise parallel surface ribs (see annotated Fig. 3 below) extending across a lower portion of the y-shaped throat into the handle (12) protruding from the frame interior surface to a height that is approximately equal to half the thickness of the paddle. While Yu does not explicitly disclose the height being in the range of 0.01 inch to 0.20 inch, the examiner notes that Brent teaches an exemplary paddle thickness of 3/8” to 9/16” (¶ 100), or 0.375 inches to 0.56 inches. Half of the exemplary paddle thickness would be 0.19 inches to 0.28 inches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying Brents in view of Yu as discussed above, to provide the parallel surface ribs with a height of 0.19 inches to 0.28 inches (i.e., half of Brents’ paddle thickness), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.20 inches.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to the claimed bosses, Yu teaches the reinforcing structures further comprise male and female bosses (male projections 14 and female hubs 101, Fig. 2; col. 2:11-17) configured such that each male boss (14) located on the first frame member is opposite a female boss (101) located on the second frame member such that when the first frame member is joined to the second frame member, each male boss is received within the opposite female boss (col. 2:11-17). When the frame members are identical, Poschenrieder similarly discloses male bosses (connecting pins 8) and female bosses (sleeve-like sections 10 with openings 9’; see Figs. 3 and 5-8) configured such that each male boss (8) located on the first frame member (6) is opposite a female boss (9’, 10) located on the second frame member (7) such that when the first frame member (6) is joined to the second frame member (7), each male boss (8) is received within the opposite female boss (9’, 10; col. 3:6-52). Therefore, when modifying Brents in view of Yu and Poschenrieder as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include male and female bosses in the configuration taught by Poschenrieder, in order to fasten the two identical frame members together.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Brents teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 13. With respect to the bonding structures, Brents further teaches the bonding structures comprise surface standoff features including ribs and nubs (hollow connecting pins 8 being ribs and sleeve-like sections 10 being nubs; see Figs. 5-7) protruding above the frame interior surface by a distance that is shown to be less than half the total thickness of the frame (see Figs. 5-7). While Poschenrieder does not explicitly disclose the height of the features being in the range of 0.01 inch to 0.20 inch, the examiner notes that Poschenrieder shows that Brent teaches an exemplary paddle thickness of 3/8” to 9/16” (¶ 100), or 0.375 inches to 0.56 inches. Half of the exemplary paddle thickness would be 0.19 inches to 0.28 inches. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying Brents in view of Yu and Poschenrieder as discussed above, to provide the standoff features taught by Poschenrieder with a height of less than 0.19 inches or less than 0.28 inches (i.e., less than half of Brents’ paddle thickness), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.20 inches.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 16-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of copending Application No. 18/791,334 in view of Brents.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, copending claim 8 describes a pickleball paddle comprising a frame and a head subassembly, wherein the frame comprises a rim, a frame aperture, a handle, and first and second frame members joined at coupling surfaces, substantially as claimed. Copending claim 8 does not explicitly recite a y-shaped throat and a grip. However, these are conventional features of a pickleball paddle which are clearly disclosed by Brents, as discussed in detail above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of copending claim 8 to include a y-shaped throat as taught by Brents in order to optimize the weight and stiffness of the paddle (see Brents, ¶¶ 63-67), and to include a grip as taught by Brents in order to improve user comfort.
The coordinate system defined in claims 2 and 16 is inherent to the invention described in copending claim 8. (The examiner notes that these limitations simply define the coordinate system, without describing any further distinguishing structure of the paddle.) With respect to claims 3-7, the recited perimeters, surfaces, and edges are implicit features of the frame described in copending claim 8. The features of claims 8 and 17 are described in copending claim 11. The features of claim 9 are described in copending claim 14. The features of claim 10 are described in copending claims 19 and 20. The features of claim 11 are implicit in copending claim 8. The features of claim 12 are described in copending claim 19. The features of claim 13 are described in copending claim 20. The features of claims 18 and 19 are taught by Brents, as discussed above in the rejection of claims 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103, and would have been obvious to incorporate into the paddle of copending claim 8 in order to optimize the weight and stiffness of the paddle. The features of claim 20 are also taught by Brents, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, and would have been obvious to incorporate into the paddle of copending claim 8 in order to supply a pickleball paddle of typical mass and dimensions.
Claims 14 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of copending Application No. 18/791,334 in view of Brents, in further view of Yu and Poschenrieder.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the copending claims are silent with respect to the arrangement and dimensions of the reinforcing structures and bonding structures. However, the claimed arrangement of reinforcing structures and bonding structures is suggested by Yu and Poschenrider, as discussed in detail above in the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of copending claim 8 to include reinforcing structures and bonding structures in the claimed arrangements and dimensions, as suggested by Yu and Poschenrieder, in order to strengthen the assembled paddle.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Rourke (U.S. Patent Pub. 2016/0250533) and Lin (U.S. Patent Pub. 2023/0149785) each disclose a sports paddle comprising a frame with a frame aperture in which a head subassembly is positioned, cited here as further representative of the state of the art.
Osbourne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,672,131), Trost (German Patent No. DE 1043897), Dominguez Escudero (Spanish Patent Pub. ES 2255419 A1), and Severa (European Patent Pub. EP 2735346 A1) each disclose a sports paddle or racket comprising a two-piece frame joined along a coupling plane parallel to the XY axis, cited here as further representative of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claims 1 and 2.
2 bond. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved July 9 2026 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bond
Prosecution Insights