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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection. Note discussion of Foreign Publication WO97/17866 by Arbel and US Publication 2003/0111370 by Sanderson, below.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 102/103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that they disagree with the previous arguments regarding Dahlsten and that Dahlsten does not disclose that the protective cover is connected to the golf bag as the definition of connected is “fastened or joined”(Page 7-8), the examiner disagrees, pointing out the golf bag is joined to the cover and lays on a rear portion of the cover along the entirety of the rear portion. The claims do not require a particular type of connection.
In response to applicant's argument regarding Griffith (Page 10-11), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that pad 106, although removable, forms a protective layer over a portion of a side of the golf bag when teaching Dahlsten. Additionally, the claim is now rejected in view of Arbel.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(Claim 20 line 4) “exterior length of the golf bag” should be “exterior length of the golf bag on”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 14 recites the limitation "the first side of the protective layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3,5,8,11-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by US Patent 5862910 issued to Dahlsten (Here forth “Dahlsten”) in view of Foreign Publication WO97/17866 by Arbel (Here forth “Arbel”).
Regarding claim 1, Dahlsten discloses a golf bag (Fig 2) comprising:
a first side(Fig 2, first side is the portion on one side between the rear and front side);
a second side (Fig 2, second side is opposite the second side);
a front side, different from the first side and the second side (Fig 2, front side is the side with the handle 32);
a rear side, different from the first side, the second side, and the front side (Fig 2, rear side is opposite the front side);
[Not taught: a protective layer connected to and disposed on the rear side of the golf bag, the protective layer being further disposed along an entirety of an exterior length of the rear side of a bag portion of the golf bag such that the first side, the second side, and the front side are externally accessible with the protective layer connected to the rear side of the golf bag]; and
a base disposed at a bottom of the golf bag (Fig 2, Base 36 is disposed at the bottom).
Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation A: protective layer
Arbel disclose a similar golf bag that teaches Limitation A, a protective layer connected to and disposed on the rear side of the golf bag, the protective layer being further disposed along an exterior length of the rear side of a bag portion of the golf bag such that the first side, the second side, and the front side are externally accessible with the protective layer connected to the rear side of the golf bag (Fig 2A of Arbel, protective layer 44 can be attached to the rear side of the golf bag along the exterior length of the rear side of a bag portion of the gold bag; Fig B, the protective layer includes a second width that is less wide than the first width; the protective layer includes a third width that is wider than the second width but narrower than the third; the protective layer includes a convex curve along the first side of the protective layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig B- Examiner annotated fig 2 of Dahlsten and annotated Fig 2A of Arbel
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Arbel before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten have a protective layer that is disposed along the rear side of the golf bag to put the padding anywhere the wearer could contact the golf bag such that the shape matches to curves of the golf bag, as taught by Arbel, to advantageously make it more comfortable for the user to carry on their back.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the protective layer so it disposed on the entirety of the length of the golf bag rear side. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Regarding claim 3, Dahlsten further discloses wherein the golf bag includes a cap portion (Fig 1, cap portion 24+64).
Regarding claim 5, Dahlsten further discloses wherein the cap portion further comprises:
a first side;
a second side;
a front side, different from the first side and the second side;
a rear side, different from the first side, the second side, and the front side (Fig 1-2, Cap 24+64 includes first, second, front and rear sides that correspond with the sides of the golf bag); and
a protective layer connected to the rear side of the cap portion of the golf bag and disposed along an entirety of an exterior length of the rear side of a cap portion of the golf bag (Fig 2, the protective layer is a portion of the cap portion 64 that covers the cap portion 24 along the sides of portion 24).
Regarding claim 8, Dahlsten further comprising further comprising a handle on the front side of the bag portion of the golf bag (Fig 2, handle 32).
Regarding claim 11, Dahlsten further discloses wherein the protective layer includes a first width (Fig 1, the protective layer inherently has a first width).
Regarding claim 12, Dahlsten as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the protective layer includes a second width that is less wide than the first width (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Fig B, the protective layer includes a second width that is less wide than the first width on a body portion of the golf bag, the protective layer includes a third width that is wider than the second width but narrower than the third width on a body portion of the golf bag).
Regarding claim 13, Dahlsten as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the protective layer includes a third width that is wider than the second width but narrower than the third width (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1 and 12, Fig B).
Regarding claim 14, Dahlsten as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the protective layer includes a convex curve along the first side of the protective layer(See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Fig B).
Regarding claim 17, Dahlsten discloses a golf bag, comprising:
a first side (Fig 2, first side is the portion on one side between the rear and front side);
a second side (Fig 2, second side is opposite the second side);
a front side, different from the first side and the second side (Fig 2, front side is the side with the handle 32);
a rear side, different from the first side, the second side, and the front side (Fig 2, rear side is opposite the front side);
[Not taught: a protective layer connected to and disposed on the rear side of the golf bag, the protective layer being further disposed along an entirety of an exterior length of the rear side of a bag portion of the golf bag such that the first side, the second side, and the front side are externally accessible with the protective layer connected to the rear side of the golf bag, wherein the protective layer includes a first width, a second width, and a third width along the exterior length of the rear side of the bag portion ]; and
a base disposed at a bottom of the golf bag (Fig 2, Base 36 is disposed at the bottom).
Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation C: protective layer
Arbel disclose a similar golf bag that teaches Limitation C, a protective layer connected to and disposed on the rear side of the golf bag, the protective layer being further disposed along an exterior length of the rear side of a bag portion of the golf bag such that the first side, the second side, and the front side are externally accessible with the protective layer connected to the rear side of the golf bag (Fig 2A of Arbel, protective layer 44 can be attached to the rear side of the golf bag along the exterior length of the rear side of a bag portion of the golf bag; Fig B shown above, the first width is wider that the second and the second width is narrower than the first and third).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Arbel before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten have a protective layer that is disposed along the rear side of the golf bag to put the padding anywhere it could contact the wearer, as taught by Arbel, to advantageously make it more comfortable for the user to carry on their back.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the protective layer so it disposed on the entirety of the length of the golf bag rear side. Such a modification involves only a difference in recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. Such modification would involve no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed dimensions.
Regarding claim 18, Dahlsten as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the first width is wider than the second width and the third width and the second width is narrower than the first width and the third width (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 17).
Regarding claim 19, Dahlsten further discloses further comprising a cap portion of the golf bag, the cap portion including a protective layer on a rear side of the cap portion of the golf bag (Fig 2, the protective layer is a portion of the cap portion 64 that covers the cap portion 24 along the sides of portion 24).
Claims 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Dahlsten, Arbel, and Sanderson in view of US Patent 4,685,561 issued to Reimers (Here forth “Reimers”).
Regarding claim 2, Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following limitations:
Limitation E: full length dividers
Reimers discloses a similar golf bag that disclose Limitation E: wherein the golf bag further includes a plurality of full length dividers disposed within the golf bag (Column 2, lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the modified Dahlsten and Reimers before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten to make dividers full length, as taught by Reimers, to advantageously form fully formed separated compartments wherein none of the items in each compartment can move to be within another compartment.
Regarding claim 4, Dahlsten as modified includes all the limitations including wherein the cap covers the plurality of full length dividers disposed within the golf bag (See the detailed description of the rejection of claims 1 and 2; Dahlsten Fig 1, Cap 24+64 covers the entire top of the golf bag 12, therefore covering everything within the golf bag including full length dividers).
Regarding claim 7, Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following limitations:
Limitation F: a pocket on bag portion base.
Reimers discloses a similar golf bag that disclose Limitation F, wherein the base disposed at the bottom of the bag portion of the golf bag further includes a pocket (Fig 1, pocket 41 is located at the bottom portion of the golf bag portion located at the base of the bag).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Reimers before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten to include a pocket on the bottom base portion of the body, as taught by Reimers, to advantageously provide compartments where small items can fit.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlsten, Arbel and Sanderson in view of US Patent D344626 issued to Landa (Here forth “Landa”).
Regarding claim 6, Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following limitation:
Limitation G: Lacing
Landa discloses a similar bag capable of holding sports equipment such as golf equipment and teaches Limitation G, wherein the front side further includes lacing (Fig A shown below).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Landa before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten to include lace, as taught by Landa, to advantageously be able to add aesthetic value to the bag.
PNG
media_image3.png
344
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig A- Examiner annotated Fig 1 of Landa
Regarding claim 9, Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following limitation:
Limitation H: a tongue disposed under lacing
Landa discloses a similar bag capable of holding sports equipment such as golf equipment that teaches Limitation H further comprising a tongue disposed under lacing on the bag portion of the golf bag (Fig A, there is tongue under the lacing).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Landa before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten to have the tongue located under the lace, as taught by Landa, to advantageously be able to add aesthetic value to the bag to give the appearance of a shoe and also tighten the portion of the walls around the tongue.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlsten, Arbel and Sanderson in view of US Publication 2002/0179653 by Klamm (Here forth “Klamm”).
Regarding claim 10, Dahlsten as modified does not expressly disclose the following limitation:
Limitation I: an open pocket is formed between the tongue and lacing.
Klamm discloses a similar bag capable of holding golf equipment that teaches Limitation I, wherein an open pocket is formed between the tongue and the lacing on front side of the golf bag (Fig 1, Lace 42 is attached by being laced through the holes 44, thereby forming space between the rest of the bag portion and lace that can be considered a pocket, as items can be held therebetween).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Klamm before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten to have the lace attached to the back by being laced through the holes such that a pocket is formed between the tongue and lace, as taught by Klamm, to advantageously be able to quickly hold items.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlsten, Arbel, and Sanderson, Brown and Mashburn in view of US Patent 4174747 issued to Boles (Here forth “Boles”).
Regarding claim 15, Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following limitations:
Limitation M: the protective layer includes rubber.
Boles discloses a similar golf bag that teaches Limitation M, wherein the protective layer includes rubber (Column 3 lines 11-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the modified Dahlsten and Boles before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the modified golf bag of Dahlsten to have the protective cover include rubber, as taught by Boles, to advantageously provide the cover with cushioning capabilities.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Dahlsten, Arbel, and Sanderson in view of US Publication 2016/0016058 by Mashburn (Here forth “Mashburn”).
Regarding claim 16, Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following limitation:
Limitation N: materials include leather and plastic.
Mashburn discloses a similar golf bag that teaches Limitation N, wherein the first side, the second side, and the front side include one or more of leather, polymers, and plastic (Para 25, bag is a hard composite material and cover is leather).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Mashburn before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten to have the sides include two different layers, as taught by Mashhburn, to advantageously have the bag material provide rigidity and structure and cushioning.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlsten in view of Arbel.
Regarding claim 20, Dahlsten discloses a golf bag, comprising:
a bag portion of the golf bag, the bag portion of the golf bag being connected to a protective layer that extends along an exterior length of the bag portion (Fig 17, protective layer 28 extends the entire length of the bag) of the golf bag [Not taught: wherein the protective layer is connected along the exterior length of the golf bag on only one side of the bag portion of the golf bag]; and
a base disposed at a bottom of the bag portion of the golf bag (Fig 2, Base 36 is disposed at the bottom).
Dahlsten does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation P: protective layer
Arbel disclose a similar golf bag that teaches Limitation P, wherein a protective layer that extends along an exterior length of the bag portion of the golf bag on only one side of the bag portion of the golf bag and wherein the protective layer is connected along the exterior length of the golf bag on only one side of the bag portion of the golf bag (Fig 2A of Arbel, protective layer 44 can be attached to one rear side of the golf bag along the exterior length of the rear side of a bag portion of the golf bag).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dahlsten and Arbel before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the golf bag of Dahlsten have a protective layer that is disposed along the exterior length of one side of the golf bag of the golf bag, as taught by Arbel, to advantageously make it more comfortable for the user to carry on their back.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 17 November 2025