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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/26/2023 was/were considered by the examiner.
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 limitations of claims 10 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The first and second vertical retaining features placed vertically along vertical edges are not shown.
The first horizontal retaining feature proximate the first end of the horizontal surface (along the floor) is not shown.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 10, the first vertical retaining feature and the second vertical retaining feature corresponding to a lip, net, or brush per [0019].
In claim 11, the first horizontal retaining feature corresponding to a lip, net, or brush per [0019].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masucci US 8216083 in view of Heitzman US 5655972.
Regarding claim 2, Masucci discloses a game of skill device comprising:
a unitary and substantially smooth curvilinear game playing mat (41) comprising:
a horizontal surface having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is configured to lie substantially flat on a floor, a vertical surface having a first end and a second end, and a curvilinear surface that interconnects the second end of the first horizontal surface to the first end of the vertical surface (Fig. 1);
an approximately golf-ball sized ball (13);
a target (44,45); and
a ball putter (12);
wherein during gameplay a player (11) places the ball at a tee-off position (25) located proximate the first end of the horizontal surface and thereafter putts the ball with the ball putter with sufficient force and in the proper direction such that the ball rolls from the first end of the horizontal surface past the target, the ball then reversing direction back
However, it does not teach that the target comprises at least two ball-receiving cups, each ball-receiving cup having an upwardly-facing cup mouth, wherein each ball-receiving cup is releasably fastened to the curvilinear surface or the vertical surface of the game play mat.
Heitzman teaches a game comprising a player club to launch a golf ball (58) towards at least two ball receiving targets (Fig. 1) wherein the target comprises ball-receiving cups, each having an upwardly-facing cup mouth, releasably fastened to a surface of a backing (Fig. 4) in order to receive the ball. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the target as taught by Masucci by simply substituting in the target of Heitzman in order to receive the ball at the target. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Heitzman further teaches that the at least one ball-receiving cup has a differently sized upwardly facing cup mouth than at least one other ball-receiving cup (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Masucci further discloses that the player putts from a tee off position located on the floor proximate the first end of the horizontal surface (Fig.1).
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masucci US 8216083 in view of Heitzman US 5655972 as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Krumlauf US 5655972.
Regarding claim 5, the combination does not teach an automatic scoring and display system configured to (a) automatically detect and award points for each instance that the player successfully putts the ball into a ball-receiving cup, and (b) display on a display device the cumulative points earned by the player during game play.
Krumlauf teaches a putt practice game comprising an automatic scoring and display system configured according to claim 5 (col 4 ln. 54-66). Thus, 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 device as taught by the combination by utilizing an automatice scoring and display system as taught by Krmlauf in order to keep track of and display the score of the players.
Regarding claim 6, Krumlauf further teaches that the automatic scoring and display system awards points to a player for each instance that the player successfully putts the ball into a ball-receiving cup (Id).
Regarding claim 7, Heitzman further teaches that the points awarded vary depending on the size, location, or orientation of the ball-receiving cup into which the player successfully putted the ball (col. 3 ln. 1-9).
Regarding claim 8, the combination does not teach that each of the at least two ball-receiving cups further include an opening opposite the upwardly-facing cup mouth, the opening being larger than the approximately golf-sized ball.
Krumlauf teaches a putting practice device comprising ball-receiving cups (39) including an opening (40) opposite an upwardly-facing cup mouth (Fig. 4), the opening being larger than the approximately golf-sized ball (col. 4 ln. 34-45) in order to return the ball to the player. Thus, 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 targets as taught by the combination by utilizing openings as taught by Krumlauf in order to return the balls to the player.
Regarding claim 9, the combination further teaches that during gameplay the player places the ball at a tee-off position located proximate the first end of the horizontal surface and thereafter putts the ball with the ball putter with sufficient force and in the proper direction such that the ball rolls from the first end of the horizontal surface (Masucci, Fig. 1) past at least one of the ball-receiving cups, the ball then reversing direction back into the upwardly facing cup mouth of one of the at least one of the ball-receiving cups (per Heitzman), the ball thereafter passing through the opening of the one of the at least one of the ball-receiving cups, and then downwardly along the curvilinear game surface toward the player (per Krumlauf).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masucci US 8216083 in view of Heitzman US 5655972 as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Slavik US 20120021845.
Regarding claim 10, Masucci does not teach a first vertical retaining feature placed vertically along a first vertical edge of the smooth curvilinear game playing mat and a second vertical retaining feature placed vertically along a first vertical edge of the smooth curvilinear game playing mat opposite to the first retaining feature.
Slavik teaches an indoor putting training aid comprising a first and second vertical retaining feature (12 and 13) placed vertically along a first and second vertical edge of a smooth curvilinear game playing mat (Fig. 1) in order to guide the ball back down following the shot ([0026]). Thus 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 device as taught by the combination by utilizing first and second vertical retaining features corresponding to lips as taught by Slavik in order to guide the golf ball back to the player.
Regarding claim 11, the combination does not teach a first horizontal retaining feature placed horizontally proximate the first end of the horizontal surface of the smooth curvilinear game playing mat.
Slavik teaches an indoor putting training aid comprising a first horizontal retaining feature (14,32) placed horizontally proximate the first end of the horizontal surface of a smooth curvilinear game playing mat (Fig. 1) in order to hold the balls [0018]. Thus, 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 device of the combination by utilizing a first horizontal retaining feature as taught by Slavik in order to hold a golf ball.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745