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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-19 in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/22/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0028, line 1, "base" should read "bag."
In paragraph 0041, line 1, "130" should read "230."
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makar (US 4932663) in view of Reimers (US RE33203).
Regarding claim 1, Makar discloses a golf game device comprising a club (Abstract, line 6-7), a ball (Figure 1, element 42), and a playing surface (Figure 1, element 14). Makar does not disclose a bag.
Furthermore, Reimers teaches a golf game device comprising a bag (Figure 1, element 10). The combination of Makar in view of Reimers includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Makar to incorporate the teachings of Reimers to provide a bag to store the club, ball, and playing surface of the golf game device. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, and Makar additionally discloses a tee (Figure 1, element 40).
Regarding claim 4, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, and Reimers additionally discloses a bag that is comprised of an interior space (Figure 1, elements 26, 28, 30, 32). The combination of Makar and Reimers includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Makar to incorporate the teachings of Reimers to provide a bag comprised of an interior space for carrying and storage of golf clubs. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, and Reimers additionally discloses a bag that is comprised of a pouch (Figure 2, elements 41 and 43). The combination of Makar and Reimers includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Makar to incorporate the teachings of Reimers to provide a bag comprised of a pouch for carrying and storage of golf balls and tees. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, and Reimers additionally discloses a bag that is comprised of a strap (Figure 1, element 42). The combination of Makar and Reimers includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Makar to incorporate the teachings of Reimers to provide a bag comprised of a strap for carrying and storage of the golf game device. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, and Reimers additionally discloses a bag that is comprised of a base (Figure 1, element 14). The combination of Makar and Reimers includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Makar to incorporate the teachings of Reimers to provide a bag comprised of a base for vertically supporting the golf game device. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makar (US 4932663) in view of Reimers (US RE33203) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Craycraft (US 4531742).
Regarding claim 3, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a ball comprised of a rubber, a plastic or a foam.
Furthermore, Craycraft teaches a golf ball comprised of a foam (Figure 1A-1B, element 12). Craycraft reveals that it is known in the art of golf balls to provide a ball comprised of a foam to vary the weight of the ball. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the golf game device of Makar in view of Reimers to incorporate the teachings of Craycraft to provide a ball comprised of a foam to vary the weight of the ball.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makar (US 4932663) in view of Reimers (US RE33203) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shioda (US 2002/0082101).
Regarding claim 8, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a club comprised of a club handle.
Furthermore, Shioda teaches a club comprised of a club handle (Figure 9, element 32). Shioda reveals that it is known in the art of golf game devices to provide a club comprised of a club handle to provide a secure grip. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the golf game device of Makar in view of Reimers to incorporate the teachings of Shioda to provide a club comprised of a club handle to provide a secure grip.
Regarding claim 9, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a club comprised of an oversized club head.
Furthermore, Shioda teaches a club comprised of an oversized club head (Figure 9, element 36). Shioda reveals that it is known in the art of golf game devices to provide a club comprised of an oversized club head to decrease the difficulty of hitting the ball. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the golf game device of Makar in view of Reimers to incorporate the teachings of Shioda to provide an oversized club head to decrease the difficulty of hitting the ball.
Regarding claim 10, Makar in view of Reimers discloses the golf game device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a club comprised of a shaft.
Furthermore, Shioda teaches a club comprised of a shaft (Figure 9, element 34). Shioda reveals that it is known in the art of golf game devices to provide a club comprised of a shaft to connect the club handle and club head. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the golf game device of Makar in view of Reimers to incorporate the teachings of Shioda to provide a club comprised of a shaft to connect the club handle and club head.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craycraft (US 4,531,742) in view of Reimers (US RE 33,203), and further in view of Billings (US 5,792,007).
Regarding claim 11, Craycraft discloses a golf game device comprising a ball (Figure 1, element 10), a tee (Figure 4, element 41 and Figure 5, element 59), and a playing surface (Figure 5, element 50) comprised of a putting surface (Figure 5, element 58 and 55) and a fairway surface (Figure 54, element 52). Craycraft does not disclose a bag comprised of a base, a pouch, a strap and an interior space or a club comprised of a club head, a club handle, and a club shaft.
Furthermore, Reimers teaches a golf game device comprising a bag (Figure 1, element 10) comprised of a base (Figure 1, element 14), a pouch (Figure 2, elements 41 and 43), a strap (Figure 1, element 42) and an interior space (Figure 1, elements 26, 28, 30, 32).
Even further, Billings teaches a club (Figure 1, element 10) comprised of a club head (Figure 1, element 18), a club handle (Figure 1, element 14), and a club shaft (Figure 1, element 12).
The combination of Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Craycraft to incorporate the teachings of Reimers to provide a bag to store the club, ball, and playing surface of the golf game device and to incorporate the teachings of Billings to provide a club to hit the ball on the playing surface of the golf game device. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, and Billings additionally discloses a club handle comprised of a rubber grip material (Column 4, lines 64-65).
The combination of Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Craycraft to incorporate the teachings of Billings to provide a rubber grip material to increase club handle comfort. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, and Billings additionally discloses a stainless-steel club shaft (Column 2, lines 27-29).
The combination of Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings includes each element claimed, with the only difference between the claimed invention the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements into a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified Craycraft to incorporate the teachings of Billings to provide a stainless-steel club shaft to connect the club head and club handle. In combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, rendering the results of this combination predictable.
Regarding claim 14, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, and Craycraft additionally discloses a playing surface comprised of an artificial turf material (Column 6, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, and Craycraft additionally discloses a putting surface comprised of a putting hole (Figure 3, element and 39 and Figure 5, element 75).
Regarding claim 18, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, and Craycraft additionally discloses a playing surface is comprised of a flag (Figure 5, element 34).
Regarding claim 19, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, and Craycraft additionally discloses a flag (Figure 5, element 34) is positioned in the putting hole ((Figure 5, element 39).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craycraft (US 4,531,742) in view of Reimers (US RE 33,203) and Billings (US 5,792,007), and further in view of Makar (US 4,932,663).
Regarding claim 15, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, but does not disclose a playing surface comprised of a strap.
Furthermore, Makar teaches a playing surface comprised of a strap (Figure 1, element, 22). Makar reveals that it is known in the art of golf practice mats to provide a strap to secure the practice mat to a frame. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the golf game device of Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings to incorporate the teachings of Makar to provide a playing surface comprised of a strap to secure the playing surface.
Regarding claim 17, Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings discloses the golf game device of claim 11, but does not disclose a playing surface comprised of a fastener.
Furthermore, Makar teaches a playing surface comprised of a fastener (Figure 1, element, 24). Makar reveals that it is known in the art of golf practice mats to provide a fastener to secure the practice mat to a frame. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the golf game device of Craycraft in view of Reimers and Billings to incorporate the teachings of Makar to provide a playing surface comprised of a fastener to secure the playing surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711