DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The notations noted below apply to all rejections: In as much structure set forth by the applicant in the claims, the device is capable of use in the intended manner if so desired (See MPEP 2112). It should be noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim limitations. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The intended use defined in the preamble and body of the claim breathes no life and meaning structurally different than that of the applied reference.
Claims 1-5, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl (US 5624326 A) in view of Hickman (US 4805912 A) and Shin (US 20060040761 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hohl teaches 1. A system for practicing golf putting, comprising: See Abstract. a second measuring member; the second measuring member configured to show a curved line from the golf ball to the golf cup; See Fig. 5A-E which show lines connecting posts to help a golfer putt a ball to a hole. The lines connecting 14 to 16 to 12 are considered curved.
Shin does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a first measuring member; the first measuring member configured to measure a first distance from a golf cup to a golf ball; See Fig. 1; (6)(10) in which 10 is a measuring member to find the distance to a golf cup.
Hickman does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a third measuring member; the third measuring member configured to show a straight line representing a line wherein a golf ball rolls straight. See Fig. 1; (28) which shows the squaring line (28). Based on the combination this line can easily be moved to the cup as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Shin to help a user accurately putt the golf ball to a desired direction by checking and revising your motion of swinging while straightly moving the putter along the putting line and keeping the putter face square to the putting line. (See [0105]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Hickman to provide means to square up a golfer while practicing putting.
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches 2. The system for practicing golf putting of claim 1, wherein: The first measuring member comprises a plurality of markers configured to indicate a specific distance from the golf cup. See Fig. 1; (6)(10) in which 10 is a measuring member to find the distance to a golf cup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Shin to help a user accurately putt the golf ball to a desired direction by checking and revising your motion of swinging while straightly moving the putter along the putting line and keeping the putter face square to the putting line. (See [0105]).
Regarding claim 3, Hohl teaches 3. The system for practicing golf putting of claim 1, wherein: the first measuring member is a first color. See 4:26+ which speaks of the coloring of the cord.
Regarding claim 4, Hohl teaches 4. The system for practicing golf putting of claim 3, wherein: the second measuring member is a second color. See 12:66+ which speaks of the different coloring for visibility. Additionally, reference In re Seid, where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) As such, the references clearly make known that changing colors for visibility is well known. The use of different colors for the measuring member would be obvious in view of the references and would not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from he prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Hohl teaches 5. The system for practicing golf putting of claim 4, wherein: the third measuring member is a third color. See 12:66+ which speaks of the different coloring for visibility. Additionally, reference In re Seid, where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) As such, the references clearly make known that changing colors for visibility is well known. The use of different colors for the measuring member would be obvious in view of the references and would not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from he prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Hohl teaches 13. A method for practicing putting of a golf ball toward a golf cup with the use of a first measuring member, a second measuring member and a third measuring member, comprising the steps of: See Abstract which teaches multiple measuring members for a golf practice device. placing a second measuring member that forms a curved line; See Fig. 5A-E which show lines connecting posts to help a golfer putt a ball to a hole. The lines connecting 14 to 16 to 12 are considered curved., putting the golf ball. See Abstract; 12:15+ putting the ball is part of the use of this prior art.
Hickman does teach what the primary reference is silent on including placing the third measuring member within one inch of the golf cup; wherein the third measuring member configured to show a straight line representing a line wherein a golf ball rolls straight; See Fig. 1; (28) which shows the squaring line (28). Based on the combination this line can easily be moved to the cup as claimed. Based on the combination this line may be placed within 1 in of the hole.
Shin does teach what the primary reference is silent on including placing a first measuring member configured to span the distance between the golf cup and the golf ball, wherein the first measuring member is at a particular angle to the third measuring member; See Fig. 1; (6)(10) in which 10 is a measuring member to find the distance to a golf cup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Hickman to provide means to square up a golfer while practicing putting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Shin to help a user accurately putt the golf ball to a desired direction by checking and revising your motion of swinging while straightly moving the putter along the putting line and keeping the putter face square to the putting line. (See [0105]).
Regarding claim 14, Shin teaches 14. The method of claim 13, wherein: the first measuring member comprises a plurality of markers configured to indicate a specific distance from the golf cup. See Fig. 1; (6)(10) in which 10 is a measuring member to find the distance to a golf cup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Shin to help a user accurately putt the golf ball to a desired direction by checking and revising your motion of swinging while straightly moving the putter along the putting line and keeping the putter face square to the putting line. (See [0105]).
Regarding claim 15, Hohl teaches 15. The method of claim 13, wherein: the first measuring member is a first color. See 4:26+ which speaks of the coloring of the cord.
Regarding claim 16, Hohl teaches 16. The method of claim 15, wherein: the second measuring member is a second color. See 12:66+ which speaks of the different coloring for visibility. Additionally, reference In re Seid, where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) As such, the references clearly make known that changing colors for visibility is well known. The use of different colors for the measuring member would be obvious in view of the references and would not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Hohl teaches 17. The method of claim 16, wherein: the third measuring member is a third color. See 12:66+ which speaks of the different coloring for visibility. Additionally, reference In re Seid, where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) As such, the references clearly make known that changing colors for visibility is well known. The use of different colors for the measuring member would be obvious in view of the references and would not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from he prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Shin teaches 19. The system for practicing golf putting of claim 1, further comprising: a gate configured to represent the golf cup; the gate comprising a line. See Fig. 1; (10) wherein the last line of 10 before the cup can be considered the gate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Shin to help a user accurately putt the golf ball to a desired direction by checking and revising your motion of swinging while straightly moving the putter along the putting line and keeping the putter face square to the putting line. (See [0105]).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl (US 5624326 A) in view of Clement (US 6048273) and Hickman (US 4805912 A) and Shin (US 20060040761 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Clement teaches 6. The system for practicing golf putting of claim 1, further comprising: a reel; the reel selectively holding at least one of the measuring members. See Fig. 1; (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Clement to allow slack in a cord to be taken up. (2:9+).
Regarding claim 12, Clement teaches 12. The system for practicing golf chipping of claim 1, further comprising: a reel; the reel selectively holding at least one of the measuring members. See Fig. 1; (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Clement to allow slack in a cord to be taken up. (2:9+).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl (US 5624326 A) in view of KR 961 (KR 20220002961 U) and Shin (US 20060040761 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hohl teaches 7. A system for practicing golf chipping, comprising: See Abstract wherein the indication of golf chipping use is the intended use of the system which the prior art is capable thereof.
Shin does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a first measuring member; the first measuring member configured to measure a first distance from a golf cup to a golf ball; See Fig. 1; (6)(10) in which 10 is a measuring member to find the distance to a golf cup.
KR 961 does teach what the primary reference is silent on including a second measuring member; the second measuring member configured to show a landing area for the golf ball; See Fig. 3; (13) the outer ring around 13 is considered the landing area., a third measuring member; the third measuring member configured to show a specified radius around the golf cup. See Fig. 3; (15) which shows the radius round the hole center. The hole can be within 15 and the area of 15 the radius around the cup. Further, 13 may also be considered the radius around the cup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Shin to help a user accurately putt the golf ball to a desired direction by checking and revising your motion of swinging while straightly moving the putter along the putting line and keeping the putter face square to the putting line. (See [0105]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with KR 961 to help accurately determine a distance between a golf ball and a hole cup.
Regarding claim 8, Shin teaches 8. The system for practicing golf chipping of claim 7, wherein: the first measuring member comprises a plurality of markers configured to indicate a specific distance from the golf cup. See Fig. 1; (6)(10) in which 10 is a measuring member to find the distance to a golf cup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Shin to help a user accurately putt the golf ball to a desired direction by checking and revising your motion of swinging while straightly moving the putter along the putting line and keeping the putter face square to the putting line. (See [0105]).
Regarding claim 9, Hohl teaches 9. The system for practicing golf chipping of claim 7, wherein: the first measuring member is a first color. See 4:26+ which speaks of the coloring of the cord.
Regarding claim 10, Hohl teaches 10. The system for practicing golf chipping of claim 9, wherein: the second measuring member is a second color. See 12:66+ which speaks of the different coloring for visibility. Additionally, reference In re Seid, where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) As such, the references clearly make known that changing colors for visibility is well known. The use of different colors for the measuring member would be obvious in view of the references and would not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from he prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Hohl teaches 11. The system for practicing golf chipping of claim 10, wherein: the third measuring member is a third color. See 12:66+ which speaks of the different coloring for visibility. Additionally, reference In re Seid, where the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) As such, the references clearly make known that changing colors for visibility is well known. The use of different colors for the measuring member would be obvious in view of the references and would not patentably distinguish the claimed invention fromt he prior art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl (US 5624326 A) in view of Covino (US 20120100924 A1) and Hickman (US 4805912 A) and Shin (US 20060040761 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Covino teaches 18. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of: utilizing a golf tee to secure one or more of the measuring members. See Fig. 2; (202) which shows the use of a tee to secure the measuring member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the date of the effective filing, to modify Hohl with Covino to secure a device to a putting surface (See [0034+]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hitchman US 5993326 A - shows a golf practice device.
Yamada US 6695710 B2 - shows a golf practice device.
Kwakkel US 5913732 - shows a golf practice device.
Choi KR 101228940 B1 - shows a golf practice device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0503. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11am - 7pm CST.
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 L 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.
/JEFFREY S VANDERVEEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3711