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 to the claims filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered into the claims. Claims 1, 6, 12, and 14 are amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12, line 6 recites “configured to to remove”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colens (US 2005/0204717 A1).
Consider claim 1. Colens teaches a system for recovering golf balls comprising: a picking assembly (“machine”, see figs. 1 and 2) configured to pick golf balls from a surface when moved along the surface; and a docking module (17) configured to remove the golf balls from the picking assembly only when the picking assembly is received in the docking module (see fig. 4), wherein the picking assembly is configured to pick golf balls from the surface only when undocked from the docking module (see figs. 2 and 3).
Consider claim 2. Colens teaches that the docking module is further arranged to collect golf balls (via 18, see fig. 4) that have been removed from the picking assembly.
Consider claim 3. Colens teaches that the picking assembly comprises: an axle (3) having mounted thereon a plurality of resilient discs (1) spaced apart from one another so as to allow the golf balls to be wedged between adjacent discs.
Consider claim 8. Colens teaches a ball receptacle (18) for storing the golf balls that are collected from the picking assembly by the docking module.
Claims 12-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akel (US 5,087,165).
Consider claim 12. Akel teaches an apparatus for removing golf balls from a picking assembly (22) configured to pick the golf balls from a surface when moved along the surface, the picking assembly comprising an axle (25) having mounted thereon a plurality of resilient discs (23) spaced apart from one another so as to allow the golf balls to be wedged between adjacent discs, the apparatus comprising: a docking module (21) configured to remove the golf balls from the picking assembly only when the picking assembly is received in the docking module (the assembled state shown in fig. 4).
Consider claim 13. Akel teaches that the docking module comprises a plurality of dislodging fingers (32), each dislodging finger engaging a space between adjacent resilient discs when the picking assembly is received within the docking module (see fig. 1), the dislodging fingers being configured to remove the golf balls that are wedged between the adjacent resilient discs when the picking assembly and the dislodging fingers are rotated relative to each other around the axle (see column 3, lines 36-39).
Consider claim 14. Akel teaches that the docking module is configured to momentarily increase a distance between the plurality of resilient discs when the picking assembly is rotated in the docking module in order to remove the golf balls from therebetween (depending on the size of the retrieved balls, see fig. 1).
Consider claim 15. Akel teaches one or more driving rollers (24) configured to rotatably engage the picking assembly (via 27), allowing rotation of the picking assembly relative to the dislodging fingers.
Consider claim 17. Akel teaches a ball receptacle (33) for storing the golf balls that are collected from the picking assembly by the docking module.
Consider claim 18. Akel teaches a vehicle having an apparatus in accordance with claim 12 attached thereto (see column 4, lines 5-7).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colens (US 2005/0204717 A1) in view of Inaba et al. (US 2023/0381600 A1), hereafter referred to as Inaba.
Consider claim 9. Colens does not explicitly teach an attachment member as specifically claimed. Inaba teaches an attachment member (61 or handle of BS, see fig. 3) on a docking module (5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Colens’s docking module with an attachment member as taught by Inaba in order to transport the docking module to a different golf course for further use. The attachment member of Colens in view of Inaba is capable of performing the recited functional language: attaching to a vehicle configured to transport the docking module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., picking up golf balls from a surface at the bottom of a body of water) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Akel does not teach the limitation “docking” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art because it includes permanent or non-removable attachment. This argument is not persuasive. Akel’s device is capable of assembly and disassembly—for example, via fasteners shown at left and right sides of 31 in fig. 1 and fasteners 28 shown in fig. 7. Akel’s forward section 21 is considered to be a docking module as broadly recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that Akel does not teach that the docking module is configured to remove the golf balls from the picking assembly only when the picking assembly is received in the docking module. This argument is not persuasive. Akel’s docking module is configured to remove the golf balls from the picking assembly only in the assembled state shown in fig. 4 as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are allowable.
Claims 4-7, 10, 11, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652