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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 “frame leg” needs to be --frame legs--. Line 6 “a construction junction” need to be -- construction junctions--- Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “distal parallel legs” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the portable target" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sorenson US 2010/0035699 (“Sorenson”).
As per claim 1, Sorenson discloses a system of requiring a golf ball to be stuck along an adjustable path width (system for training golf putting)(Figs. 1-3; paragraphs [0007]-[0008]; note [0009]+ as example of using the system), the system comprising: an inline putting frame (putting template 100)(Figs. 1-3; [0007]-[0008]), the frame comprising a backplate (bottom of template 100)(Figs. 1-3), an inside sight line an outside sight line (Figs. 1-3; note the examiner’s markings hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 1) with the inside and outside sight lines meeting at and defining a center point (Figs. 1-3; note the examiner’s markings hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 1); a first and second frame leg (right and left portions of template 100)( Figs. 1-3; note the examiner’s markings hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 1) the frame legs having a distal end defining a constriction junction (as marked in conjunction to Fig. 1) with the construction junction further defined by pair of distal parallel legs (Figs. 1-3; note the examiner’s markings hereinafter in conjunction to Fig. 1); the frame defining a first and second lateral voids (such as holes 110 and/or holes 130)(Figs. 1-3; [0007]-[0008]).
Examiner’s markings
PNG
media_image1.png
1097
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lister US 2002/0173366 (“Lister”).
As per claim 2, Sorenson is not specific regarding comprising a portable target used in alignment with the putting frame; the portable target comprising a circular outer slope with the slope terminating at a circular distal and circular wall.
However, in a similar field of golf systems, Lister discloses a portable target used in alignment with the putting frame; the portable target comprising a circular outer slope with the slope terminating at a circular distal and circular wall (aiming device with arms 16 and connecting wall 14)(Figs. 1, 2 and 4; [0030], [0031], [0035] and [0038]).
Therefore, 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 to form Sorenson’s with a portable target used in alignment with the putting frame; the portable target comprising a circular outer slope with the slope terminating at a circular distal and circular wall as taught by Lister for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Lister’s suggestions to use such portable target in assist in improving golf skills and alike (e.g., [0013]-[0018]). Such target would have been much desired as the device of Sorenson is designed to be used with a target (e.g., [0008] ”The passageway 120, point 140, and line 150 should be aligned with the target”).
As per claim 3, with respect to further comprising slope scope system disposed at the center of the center of the portable target, the slope scope system comprising a slope scope frame with a bubble level disposed at the center of the slope scope frame, note Lister Fig. 4 ([0038]) regarding the slope means (of arms 16-to-wall 14; and the use of level 24).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson and Lister as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Herman US 2,529,771 (“Herman”).
As per claim 4, with respect to further comprising a stem in attachment to the portable target, construed as projections 18 of portable aiming device of Lister (Fig. 2; [0035]). Lister is not specific regarding with the stem in rotational and height adjustment attachment to a base.
However, it is known to use a stem in rotational and height adjustment attachment to a base of a target, as taught by Herman (target with stem ,a threaded stud 13, that can rotate and change the height thereof)(Fig. 5; 1:35-2:9 ,regarding the structure of the device, to include the rotational stud 13; and 2:10+ as the use of the device, note in particular 2:20+ as the height adjustment thereof).
Therefore, 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 to form Sorenson- Lister’ stem in rotational and height adjustment attachment to a base as taught by Herman for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using known mechanical means to attached the target to a ground surface via a rotational and height adjustment means to insure the target is firmly attached in variety of terrains while practice golf strokes.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorenson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grace et al US 3,917,280 (“Grace”).
As per claim 5, Sorenson is silent regarding with a ball firing mechanism urged against the backplate of the frame with the ball firing mechanism comprising a ball contact piece the ball contact piece having an concave shape to comport with a golf ball with the ball contact piece attached to a pin with the pin attached and activated by a tension spring firing a golf ball though the frame and toward the portable target.
However, Grace discloses a ball firing mechanism urged against the backplate of the frame with the ball firing mechanism comprising a ball contact piece the ball contact piece having an concave shape to comport with a golf ball with the ball contact piece attached to a pin with the pin attached and activated by a tension spring firing a golf ball though the frame and toward the portable target (a putting machine 10, with a force inducing mechanism 38, having a ball contact piece (34), a pin (shaft 48) and a tension spring (49); Figs. 1 and 2; 3:44-4:35; the machine is used to firing a golf ball through a frame (of the machine) towards a portable target (a flag 204); Fig. 5; 5:35+).
Therefore, 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 to form Sorenson’s with a ball firing mechanism urged against the backplate of the frame with the ball firing mechanism comprising a ball contact piece the ball contact piece having an concave shape to comport with a golf ball with the ball contact piece attached to a pin with the pin attached and activated by a tension spring firing a golf ball though the frame and toward the portable target. as taught by Grace for the reason that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by Grace’s suggestions to use such firing machine to aid a golfer in putting skills (1:5-10 and 2:35-57). Such firing machine is much desired within Sorenson, as Sorenson device is designed to aid a golfer in putting skills, and adding such firing machine would have enhanced the use of Sorenson putting aid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ARIE KLAYMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 7:00 AM-4:30 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 Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/A.A.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3711 12/2/2025
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711