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 02/19/2026. Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 1-4 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 Cunningham (US Patent No. 4,538,814).
In Reference to Claims 1 and 4
Cunningham teaches (Claim 1) A shock absorption net for golf practice, comprising: (a) a frame part (item 11, fig. 1) defining a practice space having a top region, opposite side regions, a rear region, and a front opening (top, sides, rear, and front opening, fig. 1)); (b) net parts attached to the frame part to form a top surface, side surfaces, and a rear surface of the practice space, the net parts comprising an upper net forming the top surface, side nets forming the side surfaces, and a rear net forming the rear surface (top portion, side portions, and rear portions of item 19, fig. 1, column 4 lines 8-12-18); (c) a target cloth disposed inside the practice space as a target for a golf ball, the target cloth being positioned in front of the rear net and being spaced apart from the rear net by [6 inches] in a direction from the rear net toward the front opening (item 27, fig. 1, column 4 lines 36-37); and (d) a shock absorption skirt attached to the upper net and hanging downward, the shock absorption skirt being positioned in front of an upper portion of the target cloth and being spaced apart from the target cloth by 20 cm to 40 cm in the direction from the rear net toward the front opening, wherein the shock absorption skirt extends downward to cover a space between the upper net and an upper end of the target cloth so as to intercept a golf ball traveling through the space (item 45, fig. 1, column 4 lines 46-47 and column 4 line 66 – column 5 line 2, item 45 is 12in [about 30cm] from item 27);
(Claim 4) wherein the target cloth is detachably installed by using rings or connection strings (column 4 lines 29-31, connection strings).
Cunningham fails to teach the 10cm spacing between the target cloth and rear net 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 to have spaced the target cloth from the back wall with slightly different or distinct values simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are 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). Since Cunningham teaches the general conditions of providing a target cloth towards the back of the device with sufficient spacing to provide absorption and protection to the device (column 4 lines 36-40), merely claiming a specific spacing that is specifically tailored to meet this stated goal, to absorb the majority of these golf shots, is a routine matter of experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham in view of Stephens (US Patent No. 6,485,373 B1).
In Reference to Claim 2
The modified device of Cunningham teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Cunningham further teaches (Claim 2) wherein the frame part includes a front frame and a rear frame [] in which a left side frame and a right-side frame have [the same] lengths such that the front frame is [] parallel to the rear frame (fig. 1).
Cunningham fails to teach the asymmetry of claim 2.
Stephens teaches (Claim 2) an asymmetric shaped frame with non-parallel frame parts (fig’s 1 and 5).
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 net structure of Cunningham with the feature of asymmetric frame with non-parallel frame parts as taught by the net structure of Stephens for the purpose of providing better protection from stray ball strikes as taught by Stephens (column 5 lines 42-50), making the device safer, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham in view of Zheng (US Patent No. 6,684,894 B2).
In Reference to Claim 3
The modified device of Cunningham teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Cunningham further teaches (Claim 3) wherein an upper end portion of the shock absorption skirt is [attached to] the upper net and stitched to the shock absorption skirt (fig’s 1 and 11, column 5 lines 59-65).
Cunningham fails to teach the folded over L shape of claim 3.
Zheng teaches netting folded over and stitched so as to form a generally inverted L-shaped cross section (fig. 2A, column 6 lines 19-28; note “inverted” is merely an orientation and does not add structure to the claims).
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 net device of Cunningham with the feature of attachment by folding and stitching as taught by the net device of Zheng for the purpose of forming a more sturdy and reliable connection, making the device more durable, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use is an obvious matter of engineering design choice. See Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Since Cunningham teaches that the components of the device may be attached “any conventional stringing or other attaching technique,” merely claiming another known attachment technique (i.e. folding and stitching) is an obvious matter of selecting a known element for its suitability, is also a matter of substituting one known element for another, and is not a patentable advance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the spacing of the target cloth is not 10cm and the spacing of the skirt is not 20-40cm. These arguments are noted, but are not persuasive.
Regarding the skirt being 20-40cm, the examiner notes that item 45 meets this limitation. Item 45 is disclosed to be 6in from item 33 which is also 6 inches from item 27. This 12-inch spacing is approximately 30cm, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding the 10cm spacing, the examiner notes that this has been addressed with case law in the action above. Since Cunningham does teach a suitable spacing between the target cloth and the back net, merely claiming a slightly different value for this spacing is not a patentable advance. 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
Prosecution Insights