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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the first fastener being hook and loop fastener in addition to the glove fastener is not disclosed in the specification (for clarity, the only hook and loop fastener disclosed is the glove fastener, which is already separately claimed in claim 1 or 9 and so is a separate part).
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 first fastener being hook and loop fastener in addition to the glove fastener (for clarity, the only hook and loop fastener disclosed is the glove fastener, which is already separately claimed in claim 1 or 9 and so is a separate part) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With Respect to Claim 2
Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends recites the first fastener in addition to the glove fastener, but the only hook and loop fastener disclosed in the specification is the glove fastener, and so there is no description of a hook and loop fastener in addition to the glove fastener, and so this subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication #2012/0012624 to Marrero (Marrero).
With Respect to Claim 15
A method of using a belt storage device for golfers, the method comprising: providing a belt storage device for golfers comprised of a body (103/104, alone or in combination with 107) comprised of a pocket (101) and a front surface comprised of a first fastener (105 and portion of 104 that contains it); attaching the body to a belt of a user (abstract, [0037]); maqnetically attaching a divot tool (227) to the first fastener ([0042]); attachinq a glove to a glove fastener (113) on the front surface of the body ([0044]): and placing an item (balls 223) into the pocket (FIG. 2).
With Respect to Claim 18
A method of using a belt storage device for golfers of claim 15 further comprised of a step of attaching the body to a belt of a user via attaching a second fastener (107) to the belt.
With Respect to Claim 19
A method of using a belt storage device for golfers of claim 18, wherein the second fastener is positioned on a rear surface of the body (FIG. 1B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2012/0012624 to Marrero (Marrero) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #6,102,201 to Marston (Marston).
With Respect to Claim 17
A method of using a belt storage device for golfers of claim 15, wherein the item is comprised of an amount of money or a credit card.
However, Marston discloses forming a similar user belt attached golf accessory holder with a pocket (46 or 54) and placing an item into the pocket wherein the item is comprised of an amount of money or a credit card (Col. 4 lines 49-58, particularly 55-58, for money in 46 or Col. 5 lines 3-6 for a credit card in 54).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2012/0012624 to Marrero (Marrero) as applied to claim 15 above, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #6,102,201 to Marston (Marston).
With Respect to Claim 20
A method of using a belt storage device for golfers of claim 15 but does not disclose further comprised of a step of attaching the body to a belt of a user via feeding the belt through an opening of the body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the belt clip by feeding the belt through the opening formed between the clip (107) and the remainder of the body, as a mere selection of an art appropriate way to attach the clip and/or as doing so is obvious to try as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives (i.e. the clip must be attached either by pushing the belt between the bottom of the clip and the rest of the body and then up into the opening, or feeding it through the side of the opening, and either of these options would be obvious).
Alternately, Marston discloses forming a similar belt worn golf accessory holder attached to the belt using loops (30/32) by feeding the belt through the loops (Col. 5 lines 11-2 discloses placing the belt through the loops, it is Examiner’s position that this inherently requires feeding the belt through the loop as there is no other way to do so or this is clearly obvious as the common method of placing a belt through such a loop), which provides additional evidence of the obviousness of and/or motivation to feed a belt through an opening formed between the main body and a belt fastening structure attached to/formed as part of the body.
Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Marston, to replace the clip of Marreror with belt loops as taught by Marston, in order to provide a more stable attachment, prevent inadvertent removal (i.e. the clip could potentially come off with upward motion while the loops cannot come off unless the belt is undone and passed back through them), and/or as a mere substitution of one art known fastener for another.
Claims 1 and 3-5-are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2012/0012624 to Marrero (Marrero), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #6,092,661 to Mobil (Mobil).
With Respect to Claim 1
Marston discloses belt storage device for golfers comprising: a body comprised of a pocket (111); a first fastener (109 or 105 or 115) positioned on a front surface of the body; a second fastener (107) positioned on a rear surface of the body; and a glove fastener (113, [0035]) positioned on the front surface of the body; and wherein the pocket is a mesh pocket (noting disclosed as netting which indicates mesh, [0035]).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that a netting pocket is synonymous with a mesh pocket, to the degree that a different term is used and there might exist some netting that is not mesh, Mobil discloses the use of a mesh pocket to hold golf balls similar to the pocket of Marrero, and so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the pocket as a mesh pocket for the art known benefits of such (e.g. allowing the contents to more easily dry, allow dirt to escape rather than being trapped in the pocket, visibility of contents) and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known material for another, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With Respect to Claim 3
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the first fastener (105) is comprised of a magnetic fastener ([0042]).
With Respect to Claim 4
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the first fastener (109) is comprised of an elastic fastener ([0035]).
With Respect to Claim 5
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the second fastener (107) is comprised of a clip (FIG. 1B).
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2012/0012624 to Marrero (Marrero) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0256681 to Gomez (Gomez).
With Respect to Claim 9
Marrero discloses a belt storage device for golfers comprising: a body (103/104) comprised of a pocket (111) and an opening (opening into the pocket or opening formed by grommet 115); and a first fastener (109 or 105 or 115) positioned on a front surface of the body; and a glove fastener (113) positioned on the front surface of the body; but does not disclose wherein the body is an aluminum body.
However, Gomez discloses forming a similar user belt attached holder for various golf accessories (see, e.g. claim 7) and also including a glove fastener (230) positioned on a front surface of the body out of aluminum as well as metal being a substitute for plastic or various other materials for its main body portion (see claim 9 and [0027-0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gomez, to form the device of Marrero out of aluminum (for clarity, the combination encompasses either replacing the interior portion and sleeve with aluminum or merely forming the flexible base 103 out of a thin sheet of aluminum) for the art known benefits of aluminum, as a mere selection of an art appropriate material or at most a mere substitution of one art known material for another, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With Respect to Claim 11
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 9, wherein the first fastener (105) is comprised of a magnetic fastener.
With Respect to Claim 12
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 9, wherein the first fastener (109) is comprised of an elastic fastener (109).
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,102,201 to Marston (Marston) in view of U.S. Patent #8,882,605 to Lee (Lee) and U.S. Patent Publication #2006/0183566 to Levitan (Levitan).
With Respect to Claim 1
For clarity, the rejection of claim 1 uses the FIG. 3-4 embodiment, but also encompasses the FIG. 1-2 embodiment which has similar parts and the same numbers for corresponding parts, and the rejection of dependent claims reference either/both embodiments as appropriate, unless otherwise specified; a belt storage device for golfers comprising: a body (12, 40, and related structure) comprised of a pocket (46 or 40 or 54); a first fastener (34 or 36 or 44 or 52) positioned on a front surface of the body; and a second fastener (30 or 32) positioned on a rear surface of the body; but does not disclose a glove fastener positioned on the front surface of the body, and does not detail a particular material for the pocket and so does not disclose wherein the pocket is a mesh pocket.
However, Lee discloses forming a similar user mounted golf accessory holding structure with a golf glove fastener (hook and loop fastener 250) for holding a golf glove.
Levitan discloses forming a similar user mounted holder for various golf accessories including a mesh pocket (60, [0032]) for retaining various golfing accessories including a divot tool similar to the pocket of Marston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Lee, to add a golf glove fastener (hook and loop 250) to the front surface of the body (either on the pocket 16 or on the pocket 40 or below 44 or adjusting the locations of other parts to make space for such, or alternately below the closure flap fastener of the FIG. 1-2 embodiment or) in order to allow a user to hold a golf glove when not in use. For clarity, the particular location claimed constitutes an art appropriate location or alternately locating it there instead of some other location constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Levitan, to form the pocket as a mesh pocket, or to add a mesh pocket, for the art known benefits of mesh pockets such as allowing a user to see the contents of the pocket, to allow for the contents to dry and/or allow dirt to fall off of the item and out of the pocket rather than rest in the pocket, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known material for another, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With Respect to Claim 2
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the first fastener (52) is comprised of a hook and loop fastener (Col. 4 lines 62-67 and Col. 5 lines 1-2, reference number 52 is used but is not in the drawings, but clearly refers to the hook and loop patches shown in FIG. 1).
With Respect to Claim 3
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the first fastener (alternate embodiment of 44, disclosed but not shown) is comprised of a magnetic fastener (col. 4 lines 37-48).
With Respect to Claim 4
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the first fastener (34 or 36) is comprised of an elastic fastener.
With Respect to Claim 6
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the pocket (46) is positioned on the rear surface (FIG. 4).
With Respect to Claim 7
For clarity, the rejection of claim 7 uses the FIG. 1-2 embodiment; a belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the pocket (40) is positioned between the front surface and the rear surface (FIG. 1).
With Respect to Claim 8
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 1, wherein the pocket (46) is comprised of a zipper pocket (noting zipper 50 on pocket 46, FIG. 4).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,102,201 to Marston (Marston) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0256681 to Gomez (Gomez), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #8,882,605 to Lee (Lee).
With Respect to Claim 9
For clarity, the rejection of claim 9 uses the FIG. 3-4 embodiment, but also encompasses the FIG. 1-2 embodiment which has similar parts and the same numbers for corresponding parts, and the rejection of dependent claims reference either/both embodiments as appropriate, unless otherwise specified); A belt storage device for golfers comprising: a body (12, 40, and related structure) comprised of a pocket (46 or 40 or 54) and an opening; and a first fastener (34 or 36 or 44 or 52) positioned on a front surface of the body; but does not disclose a glove fastener positioned on the front surface of the body, or wherein the body is an aluminum body. It is noted that Marston discloses leather as one example material that could be used for its device.
However, Gomez discloses forming a similar user belt attached holder for various golf accessories (see, e.g. claim 7) including a glove fastener (230) positioned on a front surface of the body and which can be made of aluminum as well as aluminum being a substitute for leather or various other materials (see claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gomez, to add a glove fastener as taught by Gomez to the front surface of the Marston device, in order to allow a user to secure a glove when not in use. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gomez, to form the device of Marston out of aluminum for the art known benefits of aluminum, as a mere selection of an art appropriate material or at most a mere substitution of one art known material for another, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With Respect to Claim 10
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 9, wherein the first fastener (52) is comprised of a hook and loop fastener (Col. 4 lines 62-67 and Col. 5 lines 1-2)
With Respect to Claim 11
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 9, wherein the first fastener (alternate embodiment of 44, disclosed but not shown) is comprised of a magnetic fastener (col. 4 lines 37-48).
With Respect to Claim 12
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 9, wherein the first fastener (34 or 36) is comprised of an elastic fastener.
With Respect to Claim 13
A belt storage device for golfers of claim 9, wherein the pocket (46) is comprised of a zipper pocket (noting zipper 50 on pocket 46, FIG. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/25 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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 Newhouse can be reached on (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734