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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2024 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ellington US 4913440.
Regarding claim 1, Ellington discloses a golf swing mat system, comprising:
a golf swing mat (12) having a plurality of predefined openings (14) formed therein, wherein the plurality of predefined openings includes a plurality of guide element openings, a plurality of barrier element openings, and a plurality of ball support element openings (26, Fig. 5),
a plurality of guide elements configured mounting in the plurality of guide element openings, a plurality of barrier elements configured for mounting in the plurality of barrier element openings, and one or more ball support elements (see fig. 1) configured for mounting in one of the plurality of ball support openings (Fig. 5), and
a hitting surface element (20) coupled to the golf swing mat.
Regarding claim 2, Ellington further discloses that the golf swing mat comprises a main body having first and second opposed lateral sides and first (Fig. 5) and second opposed longitudinal sides (14A and 14B), and wherein the plurality of barrier element openings is formed along the first lateral side (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Ellington further discloses that the plurality of barrier element openings is formed in an aligned manner to form a row of barrier element openings (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Ellington further discloses that the plurality of guide element openings comprises a first plurality of guide element openings formed along the first longitudinal side of the golf swing mat and a second plurality of guide element openings formed along the second longitudinal side of the golf swing mat (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Ellington further discloses that the first plurality of guide element openings is formed in an aligned manner to form a first row of guide element openings and the second plurality of guide element openings is formed in an aligned manner to form a second row of guide element openings (Fig. 5).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellington US 4913440 in view of Landures US 3741550.
Regarding claim 6, Ellington further teaches that the main body of the golf swing mat further comprises a top surface and an opposed bottom surface (Fig. 5). However, it does not teach that the top surface has a central cavity formed therein, and wherein the hitting surface element is mounted within the central cavity.
Landures teaches a golf swing mat system wherein a top surface has a central cavity formed therein (Fig. 6), and wherein the hitting surface element is mounted within the central cavity (Fig. 6).
Since the known means of arranging the hitting surface in a golf swing mat include non-recessed and recessed construction, 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 hitting surface as taught by Ellington, by manufacturing the hitting surface of the golf mat recessed as taught by Landures, in order to yield the predictable results of manufacturing a golf swing mat system. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellington US 4913440 in view of Landures US 3741550 as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Arrant EP 286620.
Regarding claims 7-8, Ellington does not teach the limitations thereof.
Arrant teaches a main body of the golf swing mat with a bottom surface that comprises a surface feature (countersunk recess) in order to prevent the formation of a hump in the mat when it is placed upon the ground (col. 3 ln. 26-29). 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 bottom surface of the mat as taught by Ellington by utilizing the feature as taught by Arrant in all the plurality of openings in order to prevent humps in the mat when on the ground.
Regarding claim 9, the combination does not teach attack angle indicia.
The claim contains printed matter or indicia. In order to give patentable weight to printed matter it must be determined if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate. Only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case, the printed matter is the angle of attack. This serves no functional or structural relationship with the substrate. Thus, the printed matter or indicia is not given any patentable weight.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellington US 4913440 in view of Landures US 3741550 and Arrant EP 286620 as applied to claim 7 above further in view of Dilmore US 5766100.
Regarding claim 10, the combination does not teach the limitations of claim 7.
Dilmore teaches a golf training mat with a golf tee comprising a main body (Fig. 7) having a base portion (between 70 and 66) and an integrally formed extension portion (above 70), wherein the base portion includes an outwardly extending bottom portion (58) that is axially and longitudinally spaced from an outwardly extending rib portion (56), wherein the bottom portion and the rib portion are connected together by an axially extending wall portion (54). Dilmore so teaches in order to more securely attach the tee to the mat (Fig. 7)
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 guide elements as taught by Ellington by utilizing the outwardly extending bottom portion, axially extending wall portion, and outwardly extending rib portion as taught by Dilmore in order to more securely attach the element to the mat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The inversion of the dimensional relationships from what is known in the prior art.
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, 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711