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 .
Applicant’s response to the Final office action of 2/25/2023 and filing of RCE is acknowledged on 11/19/2025.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is excessively brief and overly broad, and therefore fails to clearly and concisely disclose the technical essence of the invention as required by patent law. Applicant is required to submit a revised abstract that clearly identifies the technical field and summarizes the essential technical features of the invention in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.72(b).
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims1 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fanfelle US Design Patent No. D692,512) in view of Soreenson (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0035699).
Fanfelle discloses a putting training device (see title of the reference and Figures 1-3) comprising: a body having a first elongate portion (front leg part with the holes as shown in Figure 1) and a second elongate portion (the back leg part with holes as shown in Figure 1) that are joined by a center portion having an arcuate recess at a proximate end of the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion (the left part extending between the two legs with holes), wherein the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion form a channel that has the arcuate recess at a proximate end (the arcuate recess between the two legs as shown in Figure 1. Section of the device near the arcuate recess is considered proximate) and an opening at a distal end (the left side opening between the two legs as shown in Figure 1); wherein adjacent to the distal end of the opening (the right end sides where the opening is positioned as shown in Figure 1), the first elongate portion includes a first set of guide apertures (see the holes positioned on first elongate portion as shown in Figure 1) and the second elongate portion includes a second set of guide apertures (see the holes positioned on second elongate portion as shown in Figure 1); wherein the first set of guide apertures and second set of guide apertures form paired locations across the channel that converge from the proximate end toward the distal end (see figure shown below); wherein a first paired guide apertures positions the two guide pins at a maximum separation distance (see figure shown below); wherein a second paired guide apertures positions the two guide pins at an intermediate separation distance (see figure shown below); wherein a third paired guide apertures positions the two guide pins at a minimum separation distance (see figure shown below); wherein a separation distance between the two guide pins when installed in each paired location defines a putting difficulty level (see all Figures).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (second elongate portion)][AltContent: textbox (Center portion)][AltContent: textbox (Channel)][AltContent: textbox (Proximate end)][AltContent: textbox (First elongate portion)][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)][AltContent: textbox (Arcuate recess)][AltContent: textbox (Second set of apertures/
Second guide apertures apertures)][AltContent: textbox (Opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First set of apertures/
First guide apertures)][AltContent: textbox (Third set of apertures/
Third guide apertures)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fanfelle discloses a golf putting training device as the title indicates with structures that read on the claim as discussed and shown in the Figure above but does not disclose the use of two guide pins as recited. However, the use of guide pins in a golf training device is not a new concept and Sorenson is one example of reference that teaches it (see tees (180) as shown in Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the golf training device of Fanelle with two guide pins so that the “golf tee on each side of the passageway creates a boundary through which a putter can pass and strike the golf ball in the passageway” as stated in the abstract and to have “a device that will increase the putting proficiency of a golfer” as disclosed in paragraph 2 of the Sorenson reference.
Regarding claim 4, as shown in the figure above the Fanfelle reference discloses the first paired guide apertures as being toward the proximate end of the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion, wherein the third paired guide apertures are toward the distal end of the first elongate portion and the second elongate portion, and wherein the second paired guide apertures are disposed between the first paired guide apertures and third paired guide apertures (see Figure 1 as identified above).
Regarding claims 5-6, Fanfelle does not disclose one or more mounting elements configured to fit into the first paired guide apertures or the second paired guide apertures of the first elongate portion or the second elongate portion, wherein, when installed, the one or more mounting elements fit through the first paired guide apertures or the second paired guide apertures and extend into a surface the putting training device is being mounted to. Sorenson discloses multiple mounting elements (175) that are tees. It is noted that Sorenson also teaches that (180) being used as guides are also tees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the golf training device of Fanelle mounting elements as taught by the Sorenson so that the device could be secured to the ground during putting stroke as discussed in paragraph 8 of the Sorenson reference.
Regarding claims 7-8, Fanfelle does not disclose if the putting training device could be formed from metal or plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to make the device from metal or plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Fanfelle in view of Sorenson discloses putting training the putting training device obviously provides visual feedback to a user of the putting training device since both references have center indicia and holes arranged in pattern.
Regarding claim 10, both the Fanfelle and Sorenson references as disclosed as putting training device and obviously when the references are combined and used to practice golf, the user obviously will have the capability of providing the golfer to train his/her muscle.
Regarding claims 11-13, when Fanfelle is combined with the Sorenson reference to teach the structure claims of 1 as discussed above, the placement of the two guide pins (180) in the first paired guide apertures constitutes a first configuration (when the tees (180) of Sorenson are placed in the hole identified as first set of apertures as shown in Figure 1 of Sorenson); wherein placement of the, two guide pins in the first paired guide apertures constitutes a second configuration of the putting training device (when the tees (180) of Sorenson are placed in the hole identified as second set of apertures as shown in Figure 1 of Sorenson); and wherein placement of the two guide pins in the second paired guide apertures constitutes a third configuration of the putting training device (when the tees (180) of Sorenson are placed in the hole identified as third set of apertures as shown in Figure 1 of Sorenson).
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 1 above. As shown in figure 1 above, the multiple guide aperture pairs as shown are positioned at progressively narrowing spacings, the first, second and third guide apertures define the gap width as shown in the figure above. And obviously, when Fanfelle in view of Sorenson is combined as discussed in claim 1 above, the widths define easy, medium and hard are obviously as recited.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 1 and figure 1 disclosed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-2775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711