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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the hinging mechanism” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the desired putting distance” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The phrase "can be attached" in claim 2, line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the main gate” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recitation in claim 2 of “to create infinite possibilities” is indefinite the term “infinite” is defined to mean “limitless or endless; impossible to measure or calculate”. The claim is indefinite because applicant is claiming more than is presented in the claim (i.e. limitless/endless possibilities).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the steps” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the frame” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the main gate” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the hinging mechanism and extensions” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the compact and portable design” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the combination” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the hinged main gate” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the putting gate” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the detachable extensions” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the putting gate” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the hinging mechanism” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the main gate” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Clam 2 is of improper dependent form because claim 2 (which is written in dependent form) but does not specify which claim it is dependent on. Claim 2 does not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth. It appears claim 2 should be dependent on claim 1. Applicant is advised to change the recitation in claim 2 of “the putting gate further comprising” to --the putting gate of claim 1, further comprising --.
Claims 7 and 8 are of improper dependent form because the claims are written in dependent form but the clams do not state what claim they are dependent on. Claims 7-8 do not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 recitation in claims 1 and 3 of “hooks embedded in the frame” and the recitation in claim 3 of “hook/eyelet system” 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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch (20110118041) in view of Falvo (6183373).
Regarding claim 1, Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches a putting gate comprising a main gate frame (113) hinged on one side, wherein the hinging mechanism is provided by pins embedded in the frame (Para. 0023, 0027), allowing the gate to rotate on its hinge and adjust its width to suit the requirements of the user (Para. 0027) to match the desired putting distance without the need for multiple gates (Para. 0027).
Lynch does not teach the hinging mechanism is provided by magnets or hooks embedded in the frame, and allowing the gate to rotate between 50 mm to 75 mm.
Falvo teaches the hinging mechanism is provided by magnets or hooks (Fig. 1, Part No. 18, 22) embedded in the frame (Col. 2, Lines 57-64).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “hook” is being interpreted to mean “a piece of material curved or bent at angle for holding hold of or hanging things on”.
It is noted that Lynch teaches allowing the gate to rotate on its hinge and adjust its width to suit the requirements of the user (Para. 0027). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lynch with allowing the gate to rotate between 50 mm to 75 mm as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lynch with the hinging mechanism is provided by hooks as taught by Falvo as a means of providing a putting apparatus with hooks used to attach different sides/portions of the putting apparatus (Falvo: Col. 2, Lines 57-64).
Regarding claim 2, Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches detachable extensions (102) (Para. 0020) that can be attached to the main gate frame (113) and added to the gate to create infinite possibilities in terms of gate sizes, enabling golfers to use putting gates at much longer distances, providing benefits for aim, alignment, start direction, and green reading.
Lynch does not teach detachable extensions that can be attached to the main gate frame using magnets or hooks.
Falvo teaches detachable extensions (Fig. 1, Part No. 42) (Col. 4, Lines 29-32) that can be attached to the main gate frame using hooks (Fig. 1, Part No. 18, 22) embedded in the frame (Col. 2, Lines 57-64).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “hook” is being interpreted to mean “a piece of material curved or bent at angle for holding hold of or hanging things on”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lynch with detachable extensions that can be attached to the main gate frame using hooks as taught by Falvo as a means of varying the length of a hinged putting apparatus by using hooks (Falvo: Col. 4, Lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 3, Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches a method of using a putting gate comprising the steps of: hinging the gate on pins (117, 120) embedded in the frame; rotating the gate on the hinge to adjust its width to suit the requirements of the user (Para. 0027); adding detachable extensions (102) (Para. 0020) to the main gate frame using to provide multi-functionality between a standard gate and extending the width (Para. 0027) by using detachable or extendable pieces (102).
Lynch does not teach hinging the gate on magnets or hooks, adjust the width of the gate between the widths of 50 mm to 75mm, adding detachable extensions to the main gate frame using magnets or hooks, extending the width via the use of a magnet or hook/eyelet system.
Falvo teaches hinging the gate on hooks (Fig. 1, Part No. 18, 22); embedded in the frame (Col. 2, Lines 57-64), adding detachable extensions (42) to the main gate frame using magnets or hooks, extending the width via the use of a hook/eyelet system (Col. 3, Lines 29-32).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “hook” is being interpreted to mean “a piece of material curved or bent at angle for holding hold of or hanging things on”.
It is noted that Lynch teaches allowing the gate to rotate on its hinge and adjust its width to suit the requirements of the user (Para. 0027). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lynch with allowing the gate to rotate between 50 mm to 75 mm as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lynch with hinging the gate on magnets or hooks as taught by Falvo as a means of varying the length of a hinged putting apparatus by using hooks (Falvo: Col. 4, Lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 4, Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches detachable extensions (102) (Para. 0020) that can be attached to the main gate frame (113) .
Lynch does not teach the magnets or hooks according to claim 2, used for the hinging mechanism and extensions of the putting gate are securely and durably embedded in the frame and extensions, providing stability and longevity for repeated use.
Falvo teaches the hooks (Fig. 1, Part No. 18, 22, 42) used for the hinging mechanism and extensions of the putting gate are securely and durably embedded in the frame and extensions, providing stability and longevity for repeated use (Col. 2, Lines 57-64; Col. 3, Lines 29-32).
It is noted that claims are interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Under BRI, the claim recitation of “hook” is being interpreted to mean “a piece of material curved or bent at angle for holding hold of or hanging things on”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Lynch with hooks used for the hinging mechanism as taught by Falvo as a means of varying the length of a hinged putting apparatus by using hooks (Falvo: Col. 4, Lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches the compact and portable design of the putting gate makes it easy to transport and store, making it suitable for use both at home and on the go.
Regarding claim 6, Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches the combination of the hinged main gate frame and detachable extensions according allows for versatile and flexible use of the putting gate, providing a range of challenges for golfers of all skill levels and helping to improve their aim, alignment, start direction, and green reading abilities.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lynch (20110118041).
Regarding claim 7, Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches the detachable extensions (102) of the putting gate can be added or removed as needed, providing versatility and flexibility in terms of gate size and difficulty level.
The examiner is interpreting claim 7 as being an independent claim, although it appears applicant intended claim 7 to be a dependent claim.
Regarding claim 8, Lynch (Figures 1-5) teaches the hinging mechanism (Para. 0027) of the main gate frame is adjustable, allowing for a customizable putting distance to suit the needs of each individual golfer (Para. 0027).
The examiner is interpreting claim 8 as being an independent claim, although it appears applicant intended claim 8 to be a dependent claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711