3Notice 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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2023 was considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 11 is unclear in that it recites “each pole of the plurality of poles comprising a height smaller than a thickness of the foam pad between the top and bottom surfaces where the pole is configured to extend through the foam pad.” It is unclear how the pole can extend through the foam pad but also be smaller than the thickness of the pad. As best understood by the Office the pole must extend at least through the foam pad.
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) 1, 3-4, 8-9, 12-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb US 2061973 in view of Walker US 4913442.
Regarding claim 1, Loeb discloses a modular putting green comprising:
an adjustable stage comprising: a platform (275, 276, 277, Fig. 25-26); and
a frame comprising a plurality of frame rails (264, 265) and legs (320, 321) configured to couple to and support the platform;
a foam pad (289, Fig. 27) configured to mate with the stage (276), sculpted for putting of a golf ball.
However, it does not teach that the foam pad comprises a recessed area; and a putting green insert configured to fit at least partially within the recessed area of the foam pad.
Walker teaches a golf mat comprising a foam pad (7) with a recessed area (Fig. 1) and a putting green insert (13, 15) configured to fit at least partially within the recessed area of the foam pad (Fig. 1). Walker so teaches in order to better duplicate the feel of a golf shot on natural turf (col. 1 ln. 8-9). 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 foam pad as taught by Loeb by utilizing the foam pad as taught by Walker in order to better duplicate the feel of a golf shot on natural turf.
Regarding claim 3, Loeb further discloses that the foam pad comprises a plurality of foam pad sections (each finger, 310, 315-317, Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 4, Loeb further discloses that the platform comprises a plurality of platform sections (275, 276, 277).
Regarding claim 8, Loeb discloses a modular putting green comprising:
a foam pad (289, Fig. 27) comprising:
a top surface sculpted to be positioned at a predetermined orientation for putting a golf ball (Fig. 27)
a bottom surface comprising:
a stage surface geometry (flat) configured to mate with an adjustable stage (275, 276, 277, Fig. 27) such that the top surface is positioned at the predetermined orientation;
a direct surface geometry (flat) configured to be positioned on and account for imperfections in a surface of a preselected putting area such that the top surface is positioned at the predetermined orientation (Fig. 27); or
a combination surface geometry configured to either mate with the adjustable stage (Fig. 27) or to be positioned on and account for imperfections in the surface of the preselected putting area such that the top surface is positioned at the predetermined orientation.
However, it does not teach that the foam pad comprises a recessed area; and a putting green insert configured to fit at least partially within the recessed area of the foam pad. See claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Loeb further discloses that
Regarding claim 12, see claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, Lobe discloses a method of manufacturing a modular putting green, the method comprising:
sculpting a foam pad (289) comprising:
a top surface sculpted to be positioned at a predetermined orientation for putting a golf ball (Fig. 27)
a bottom surface comprising:
a stage surface geometry (flat) configured to mate with an adjustable stage (275, 276, 277, Fig. 27) such that the top surface is positioned at the predetermined orientation;
a direct surface geometry (flat) configured to be positioned on and account for imperfections in a surface of a preselected putting area such that the top surface is positioned at the predetermined orientation (Fig. 27); or
a combination surface geometry configured to either mate with the adjustable stage (Fig. 27) or to be positioned on and account for imperfections in the surface of the preselected putting area such that the top surface is positioned at the predetermined orientation.
However, it does not teach that the foam pad comprises a recessed area; and a putting green insert configured to fit at least partially within the recessed area of the foam pad. See claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, Loeb further discloses sculpting the foam pad comprises sculpting a plurality of foam pad sections (each finger, 310, 315-317, Fig. 25) configured to collectively comprise the top surface and the bottom surface when positioned correctly on the surface of the preselected putting area (Fig. 27).
Regarding claim 18, Loeb further discloses providing the adjustable stage comprising, the adjustable stage comprising: a platform comprising a plurality of platform sections (275, 276, 277, Fig. 25-26), each platform section comprising a top surface configured to support the foam pad and a bottom surface (Fig. 27); and a frame comprising: a plurality of frame rails (264, 265) configured to couple to and support the bottom surfaces of the platform sections (Fig. 27); and a plurality of legs (320, 321), each leg comprising a leveling foot (pg. 9 col. 1 ln. 27-30).
Regarding claim 19, Loeb further discloses constructing the adjustable stage by: coupling the plurality of frame rails (264, 265) together (via cross braces 278-283) to form the frame; and coupling the plurality of platform sections to the frame to form the platform (Figs. 25 and 26); positioning the bottom surface of the foam pad on the platform of the adjustable stage (Fig. 27); and Walker further teaches inserting the putting green insert within the recessed area of the foam pad (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Loeb further discloses adjusting the leveling foot of at least one leg of the plurality of legs of the frame of the stage (pg. 9 col. 1 ln. 27-30).
Claim(s) 2, 5,-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb US 2061973 in view of Walker US 4913442 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of O’Brien US 4311312.
Regarding claim 2, the combination does not teach that the platform includes a plurality of dowel pins; and the foam pad includes a plurality of openings corresponding to the plurality of dowel pins.
O’Brien teaches a golf practice pad comprising a plurality of dowel pins (20) and a foam pad (12) that includes a plurality of openings (14) corresponding to the plurality of dowel pins in order to prevent the frame from sliding (col. 3 ln. 15-26). Thus, it would have been obvous to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the platform of Loeb by utilizing dowels and corresponding holes as taught by O’Brien in order to prevent movement when a player stand thereon.
Regarding claim 5, the combination does not teach a plurality of poles configured to extend from the platform; wherein the foam pad includes a plurality of openings, each opening of the plurality of openings configured to receive a respective pole of the plurality of poles.
O’Brien teaches a golf practice pad comprising a plurality of poles (20) configured to extend from a platform/foam pad (12); wherein the foam pad includes a plurality of openings (14), each opening of the plurality of openings configured to receive a respective pole of the plurality of poles.
Regarding claim 6, O’Brien further teaches that the platform comprises a plurality recesses (14); and each pole (20) of the plurality of poles is mountable within a respective recess of the plurality of recesses of the platform (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, O’Brien further teaches that each recess of the plurality of recesses of the platform comprises a first end of an interlocking fastener (26); and each pole (20) comprises a second end of an interlocking fastener (42) configured to mate with the first end of the interlocking fastener of each recess of the plurality of recesses of the platform to mount the pole on the platform (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, see claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 11, O’Brien further teaches a plurality of poles (20) configured to act as locators for positioning the bottom surface of the foam pad on the platform of the adjustable stage (Fig. 2), .
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb US 2061973 in view of Walker US 4913442 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kerr US 20210354019.
Regarding claim14, Loeb does not teach that sculpting the foam pad comprises machining the foam pad with a computer numerical control (CNC) machine.
Karr teaches an underlayment pad for a putting green wherein the pad is machined with a computer numerical control machine in order to cut specific patterns ([0021]). 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 foam pad as taught by Loeb by machining with a CNC as taught by Karr in order to achieve specific patterns.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeb US 2061973 in view of Walker US 4913442 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chang TW 201621493.
Regarding claim 15, Loeb does not teach laser scanning the surface of the preselected putting area prior to sculpting the foam pad.
Chang teaches a method of sculpting planar surfaces (the problem faced by the inventor) wherein the material is scanned with a laser then sends the data to a CNC machine for machining with high precision (Abstract). 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 sculpting method as taught by Loeb by utilizing a laser scanning method as taught by Chang in order to sculpt with high precision.
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