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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “slant surface” and “through hole” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical errors such as “unfoldedly”, “supportedly”, “accommodatedly”, “laminatedly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “to allow the entrance thereof to be spatially connected to a through hole formed on the bottom of the entry hole (31)”, there appears to be one “hole”, item 31, and beneath it is the area where the “induction pipe (71)” is located. The examiner is presuming this is an attempt to claim a connection between the hole 31 and the induction pipe, but the connection language is unclear.
Claim 1 recites “to accommodate the golf ball (100) freely falling therein and thus induce the golf ball (100) in a forward direction thereof”, it is unclear what is meant by the “forward direction” and “induce”, as it is indefinite whether there are further internal ramps, interior spaces within the support body (7) once the golf ball “freely falls” in entry hole (31), and whether this is intended to be the return mechanism. If so, it should be claimed after the “hitter” and in conjunction with the “hitter”, or, if it is a separate element, it should be positively claimed. details of the return mechanism are not clearly disclosed in the specifications. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting golf ball (100), freely falling within entry hole (31), followed by a return mechanism spatially connected with the support body (7), which is apparently not clearly disclosed in the specifications or figures and it is unclear how the golf ball is induced in a “forward direction”.
Claim 1 recites “an induction pipe (71) disposed in the interior thereof”. The location of the “induction pipe” is unclear because the drawings (Figure 7) indicate the “induction pipe” (71) disposed on base plate (2), whereas claim 1 implies the “induction pipe” is disposed on the support body (7). For the purpose of examination, the examiner is presuming that the induction/return pipe (71) is disposed on the support body (7) and the base plate (2) is “laminatedly” applied on top of the support body (7). Drawings need to be clarified.
Claim 1 recites “a hitter (8) located in the induction pipe (71) and operating under the control of a control unit (61) for controlling power of a power supply unit (62) to hit the golf ball (100) toward a user”, this appears generally clear; however, the details of how this works are unclear. For instance, the slant surface of support body (7) claimed previously appears to be the same surface that the ball goes through on a return path; however, the act of hitting a ball up a ramp with a hole in it sounds impossible. Details of support body (7) with only one side view are unclear as the same area appears to be used for both a ramp and a return pipe, which is a conflict; in other words, applicant’s Figure 8, the third view at the bottom, shows a ball through the ramp; if there’s a hole in the ramp, its usage as a ramp to return the ball is unclear. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the ball first falling inside hole 31, a return pipe subsequently guiding the ball towards the hitter, and returning the ball to the user via an unknown/undisclosed path, which needs to be clarified by applicant.
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.
Claims 1 -5 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.
Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “hole wall bodies (3) arranged on top of the base plate (2) to extend upward from the base plate (2) to a given height and having an entry hole (31) formed at the insides thereof “, it seems clear what items 3 and 31 are; however, entry hole 31 looks to be on top and through item 2, not “formed at the insides of items 3”. For the purposes of this action, the examiner will presume that the applicant is intending to claim locating the hole (31) on base plate (2) and locating the hole wall bodies (3) around entry hole 31 or “inside of surrounding items 3,” not “formed at the insides thereof”.
Claim 1 recites “to allow a golf ball (100) to accommodatedly (see grammar objection above) enter and two or more entry openings (32) formed on one side thereof”, although it is understood what items 32 and 3 are, the language used in the claim is indefinite. Based on the figures and specifications, openings 32 are not apparently “formed on one side thereof”. Items 32 are spaces between items 3 and do not appear to be formed on any side of anything. For the purposes of this action, the examiner will presume that the entry openings 32 created by items 3 are located “around” the base plate 2, as shown in the figures.
Claim 1 recites “a support body (7) adapted to laminatedly (see grammar objection above) locate the base plate (2)”, it is unclear what “laminatedly locate” means, and whether the applicant is intending to claim a specific attachment between items 2 and 7. For the purposes of this action, the examiner will presume that the support body is placed on top of the base plate and attached via some means of adhesion/fixation.
Claim 1 recites “an induction pipe (71) disposed in the interior thereof”, this is unclear; there does not appear to be any induction shown or described and it is unclear why the term “induction was used. For the purposes of this action, the examiner will presume that “induction pipe” was intended to recite “return pipe” or “guiding pipe”, to guide the ball toward the “hitter” later claimed and consequently returning the golf ball to the user.
7. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the entry direction" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the “entry direction” will be interpreted as the direction from where the golf ball (100) first enters an opening (32) and proceeds toward the entry hole (31).
Claim 2 recites “the three entry openings” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only requires to have two or more entry openings.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the calculation" and “the data” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is interpreting “the calculation” and “the data" as the count (calculation) indicating the number of times (data) a golf ball enters the entry hole.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR 200197038 Y1) in view of Merono (ES 1237446 U), further in view of Corcoran (20020107079), and further in view of Kim (KR 200340423).
Regarding Claim 1, Yun teaches a hole cup for golf practice (Description, first sentence) comprising: a base plate (1) with a given area unfoldedly located supportedly on a floor; a hole wall body (3) arranged on top of the base plate (1) to extend upward from the base plate to a given height (Figure 1) and having an entry hole (2) formed at the insides thereof to allow a golf ball (B) to accommodatedly enter.
Yun does not teach multiple hole wall bodies and two or more entry openings formed on one side thereof and having different widths W from one another to allow the golf ball to pass therethrough and thus enter the entry hole from the outside; a support body adapted to laminatedly locate the base plate on top thereof and having a downward slant surface with a given height from the floor in the entry direction of the golf ball and an induction pipe disposed in the interior thereof to allow the entrance thereof to be spatially connected to a through hole formed on the bottom of the entry hole to accommodate the golf ball freely falling therein and thus induce the golf ball in a forward direction thereof; and a hitter located in the induction pipe and operating under the control of a control unit for controlling power of a power supply unit to hit the golf ball toward a user.
However, Merono teaches multiple hole wall bodies (3) and two or more entry openings (doors-4,5,6) formed on one side thereof (Figure 1), and having different widths W from one another (Description of the Invention, 3rd paragraph, “three doors of different sizes”) to allow the golf ball (Figure 1) to pass therethrough and thus enter the entry hole (Figure 1) from the outside (Abstract).
Neither of above teaches a support body. However, Corcoran teaches a support body (10) having a downward slant surface (18) with a given height from the floor in the entry direction of the golf ball (20) (Figure 1) and an induction pipe (44) disposed in the interior thereof to allow the entrance thereof to be spatially connected to a through hole (14) to accommodate the golf ball (20) freely falling therein and thus induce the golf ball in a forward direction thereof (Figures 1 and 2; paragraph 25); and a hitter (60b) located in the induction pipe (44).
Corcoran does not explicitly teach use of a control unit to control the hitter but inherently there has to be some control means to determine when the hitter is activated. Kim teaches a hitter (21) operating under the control of a control unit (71) for controlling power of a power supply unit (45) to hit the golf ball toward a user (Description, “As the magnetic field is formed around the striking bar 21 is advanced along the guider 22 to hit the ball in the hole cup 13, the blown ball is discharged to the user again”).
Although device (10) of Corcoran is not defined as a “support body”, its features read on all the limitations of the support body (except control unit) as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute spring (5) of Yun with a through hole commonly utilized in the art and creating two or more entry openings surrounding the base plate as taught by Merono, and then applying modified Yun on top of a support body (10) as taught by Corcoran and using the control means of Kim to enable golfers to practice putting with different-sized openings and utilizing an automatic return mechanism of the golf ball to provide more efficiency with the ball return operation.
Regarding Claim 2, Merono teaches wherein the three entry openings (doors 4, 5, 6) are formed around the center of the entry hole (Figure 1). Merono does not disclose wherein the three entry openings are formed at intervals of equal angles to one another, so that the entry openings are located to face the wall surfaces of the hole wall bodies. However, although Merono does not disclose the angles at which the openings (4,5,6) are to one another, the openings of Merono can be simply rearranged to meet the limitations of the claim as described by the applicant. Placing the openings at intervals of equal angles to one another, so that the entry openings are located to face the wall surfaces of the hole wall bodies is merely a matter of rearrangement of parts. See In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where changing the position of a feature was held unpatentable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yun, Merono, Corcoran, and Kim such that the three entry openings taught by Merono are formed at intervals of equal angles to one another, so that the entry openings are located to face the wall surfaces of the hole wall bodies, as taught by Yun, to prevent the golf ball from exiting the other end of the golf hole apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the hole cup (13) further comprising a sensor (30) disposed on the entry hole (13) to detect an entry state of the golf ball (Description, “A pressure sensor 30 is installed inside the hole cup 13 to detect a pressure when a ball enters”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yun, Merono, Corcoran, and Kim with the sensors taught by Kim to activate other means of signaling to notify the player of whether the golf ball enters the entry hole.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches the hole cup for golf practice according to Claim 3, further comprising speakers (50) for generating set sounds for a predetermined time, if the golf ball enters the entry hole (13) (Description, “ if a golf ball enters the hole cup, the sensor detects this and informs the speaker whether or not the putting is successful”), under the control of the control unit (71) (Description, “The pressure comparing unit 72 and the putting counting unit 73 may be integrated in one control device 70 together with the control unit 71”) for performing the calculation (73-putting counting unit) for the data detected by the sensor (30) (Description, “the putting counting unit 73 to check the number of times each time it is detected that the ball is drawn into the hole cup 13 by the pressure sensor 30”). Furthermore, see the 112(b) rejection for “the calculation” and “the data” considering the lack of antecedent basis. The examiner is interpreting “the calculation” and “the data" as the count (calculation) indicating the number of times (data) a golf ball enters the entry hole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine Yun, Merono, and Corcoran with the speakers taught by Kim to notify the player of whether the golf ball enters the entry hole even from a distance.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches the hole cup for golf practice according to Claim 3, further comprising light emitters for generating set light for a predetermined time, if the golf ball enters the entry hole, under the control of the control unit (“Alternatively, the putting result may be informed to the user by using an LED light, or a device for displaying other lighting devices”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yun, Merono, and Corcoran with the light emitters taught by Kim to notify the player of whether the golf ball enters the entry hole even from a distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711