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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 09/11/2025. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US Patent No. 5,482,247).
In Reference to Claims 1 and 4
Smith teaches (Claim 1) An apparatus for supporting a golf club, the golf club including a shaft, the apparatus comprising: a body having first and second opposing halves, [] (left and right halves of item 66, fig’s 1-11); a pair of legs, each leg including upper and lower extents (items 26 / 30 / 32, fig’s 1-11), the upper extent of each leg being pivotally connected to the body (via items 106/108, fig’s 5-7); and a clamp being pivotally connected to the body (item 70 / 38 / and optionally items 60/62, fig. 4) via a bearing secured within an internal area of the body (item 88, fig. 4, column 5 lines 46-52, item 88 is within item 66), the clamp dimensioned to be releasably and frictionally secured to the shaft of the golf club (column 5 lines 14-35 and column 7 lines 31-40);
(Claim 4) wherein the clamp can be secured into one of a series of angular orientations relative to the body (fig’s 2, 3, 5, and 6; at least all the way extended and all the way adjacent the club, presumably the device could be used at other angular orientations in between as well; see column 7 lines 17-30).
Smith fails to teach the first and second halves being separate of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first and second halves as separate rigidly connected elements as opposed to a single element having two halves simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since it has been held that making components of a device integral instead of several rigidly secured parts is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Since the final structure of the device would not operate any differently whether these halves are made from one integral element or of multiple rigidly secured elements, this minor distinction is not a patentable advance.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Pare (US Patent No. 7,189,766 B2).
In Reference to Claim 2
Smith teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Smith fails to teach the feature of claim 2.
Pare teaches (Claim 2) further comprising a ball marker that is releasably secured to [a] body (item 38, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the club holding device of Smith with the feature of a releasably secured ball marker as taught by the club holding device of Pare for the purpose of providing multi-functional use to the device, allowing the device to be able to perform more than one golfing task as taught by Pare (column 1 lines 35-44), making the device more versatile, and more interesting and attractive to the users.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Hsich (US PGPub. No. 2004/0198527 A1).
In Reference to Claim 3
Smith teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Smith fails to teach the feature of claim 3.
Hsich teaches (Claim 3) wherein [a] leg [is] telescopically adjustable (items 1 and 2, fig. 3-1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the club stand device of Smith with the feature of telescoping legs as taught by the club stand device of Hsich for the purpose of allowing the device to break down into a smaller size for storage when not in use, as taught by Hsich (summary), making the device more convenient and more attractive to the users.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Twohig (US Patent No. 8,414,415 B1).
In Reference to Claim 5
Smith teaches (Claim 5) An apparatus for supporting a golf club, the golf club including a shaft, the apparatus comprising: a body having first and second opposing halves, [](left and right halves of item 66, fig’s 1-11), []; a pair of legs, each leg including upper and lower extents (items 26 / 30 / 32, fig’s 1-11), the upper extent of each leg being pivotally connected to the body (via items 106/108, fig’s 5-7); a clamp being pivotally connected to the body (item 70 / 38 / and optionally items 60/62, fig. 4) via a bearing secured within an internal area of the body (item 88, fig. 4; column 5 lines 46-52), the clamp dimensioned to be releasably and frictionally secured to the shaft of the golf club (column 5 lines 14-35 and column 7 lines 31-40).
Smith fails to teach the protrusions and recesses of claim 5 and the first and second halves being separate.
Twohig teaches (Claim 5) one of [] opposing halves including opposing protrusions (items 580, fig’s 3 and 4); [] the clamp including a [] recess[] that cooperate[s] with the opposing protrusions to selectively secure the clamp in one of several angular orientations relative to the body (item 570, fig’s 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the club holding device of Smith with the feature of protrusions and recesses as taught by the club holding device of Twohig for the purpose of allowing the device to be more securely held in a wider range of positions as taught by Twohig (column 3 lines 25-34), making the device more versatile, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). And, that reversal of parts is an obvious modification. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Since the feature of opposing protrusion and recess with multiple options for engagement producing secure orientations of the device at different angles is taught in Twohig, merely claiming more or less protrusions and recesses, or, locating the protrusion or recess on one or the other of the mating components would not produce any operational distinction within the device and are, therefore, obvious matters of engineering design choice and not patentable distinctions.
Finally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the first and second halves as separate rigidly connected elements as opposed to a single element having two halves simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since it has been held that making components of a device integral instead of several rigidly secured parts is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Since the final structure of the device would not operate any differently whether these halves are made from one integral element or of multiple rigidly secured elements, this minor distinction is not a patentable advance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to the previous 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument, that the newly added limitation of “the first and second opposing halves being separate” overcomes the rejection, is noted, but, is not persuasive. While this overcomes the 102 rejection, simply making components of a prior art device separate, rigidly connected elements, or, of one integral element, are obvious expedients, and is not a patentable distinction. See action above for further details.
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 JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711