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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to” or “operable to”. The examiner is aware of the functional language in the various claims.
Disclaimer
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Independent claim 1, discloses “a third belt end” and “a fourth belt end” and it is not clear at what structure these terms are referring to. Since the rest of the claims depend on rejected claim 1, all claims are rejected as being indefinite.
For purpose of examination, the second belt ends as shown in Figure 1 of the instant application are considered as a third and fourth ends.
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 “third belt end” and “fourth belt end” as recited in claim 1must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beroza et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0243172).
Regarding claim 8, golf assist device for assisting a person playing golf (see abstract and first embodiment as shown in Figures 1-4, 7-8 and 10), comprising: a support assembly (10) including a first belt adapted to be supported on a first shoulder of the person (29) and a second belt adapted to be supported on a second shoulder of the person (31); and a strap assembly (47 as shown in Figure 8) coupled to the support assembly (see Figures 1-2), the strap assembly (assembly of 47 and 59) including: a strap (strap 47 as shown in figure 8) connected to the second belt (31) and configured to extend across a torso of the person (the strap component 47 as shown in Figure 10 is capable of extending across the torso of the person during use or swing), the strap extending proximate the second shoulder to a hand of the person connected to the first shoulder (see Figure 10); and a loop (straps 67 and 69 encircling the device as shown in Figure 7) connected to the strap and adapted to be engaged with a handle of a club and held by the person to assist in playing golf (Beroza teaches that the device can be used in golf as disclosed in paragraph 4. When it is used in golf, it will be attached to the club and it is considered to be capable of being engaged with the handle). In addition, it should be noted that the device is capable of positioning the strap in multiple different ways including as being capable of extending across the torso of the user as recited since paragraph 9 teaches that the strap/elastic cord as being capable of being attached to various ones of the loops on the vest or harness and may be threaded through others of the loops in order to guide the elastic cords to desired locations.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the strap is connected to the second belt with a hook (in paragraph 9, Beroza discloses the elastic cords/ straps (47,49) as having clips at their ends to facilitate attachment to the harness. For example, the clips shown at the ends of 49 and 47 are considered as hooks).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the support assembly includes a frame (15), the frame connected to the first belt on a first side of the frame (29) and connected to the second belt on a second side of the frame (31), opposite the first side (see Figure 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beroza in view of Czaja et al. (US patent Application Publication No. 2003/0176227).
Regarding claim 13, Beroza discloses a method of using a golf assist device (see abstract and Beroza teaches that the device can be used in golf in paragraph 4. See the two embodiments shown in Figures 1-10) having a first belt (29), a second belt (31) and a strap assembly (assembly of 47 and 49) connected to the second belt (see Figures 8 and 10), comprising: positioning the first belt over a first shoulder of a person (as shown in Figures 2, 8 and 10, first belt (29) is positioned over the first shoulder of the user); positioning the second belt over a second shoulder of the person (as shown in Figures 2, 8 and 10, second belt (31) is positioned over the first shoulder of the user); extending the strap assembly across a torso of the person (during the use of the device making golf swing, the strap assembly (assembly of 47 and 59) will be positioned across the torso of the person). Beroza does not disclose if the person is able to grasp a loop of the strap assembly in a hand connected to the first shoulder. However, Czaja is a golf swing training apparatus that teaches a loop (30) at the end of the strap being positioned on a golf handle and being grasped by a golfer (see Figures 1-2, 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the loop of Beroza on a golf club handle as taught by the Czaja reference in order for a golf to perfect his or her golf swing as discussed in paragraph 2 of the Czaja reference. During normal use and operation of the combination of the references, the method steps as recited would obviously be performed.
Regarding claim 14, further comprising connecting a hook (59) between the strap assembly (47) and the second belt (31). For example, as shown in Figure 3, strap 47 is flexible and movable and it can be considered that hook 59 is positioned between the strap and the belt as recited).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Beroza does not explicitly disclose adjusting a length of the first belt and the second belt. However, the concept of making golf harness components adjustable is taught by the Czaja reference (components 16,18 and 24 are all disclosed as “adjustment means, 16 and 18, respectively, that may be a fastening tape consisting of a strip of nylon with a surface of minute hooks that fasten to a corresponding strip with a surface of uncut pile, buckles, hooks or other suitable conventional means to adjust the size of the harness 10” in paragraph 36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the Beroza device with adjustable means as taught by the Czaja reference so that the device could fit golfers of various size (men, women and children of most ages) and must be properly fitted to achieve maximum training benefits as stated in paragraph 36 of the Czaja reference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beroza in view of Hurwitz (US Patent No. 3,858,881).
Beroza does not disclose the loop as being formed of an elastic cord. Hurwitz is an example of a sport’s reference that teaches a loop can be formed as an attachment means to a sport handle (see 46 as shown in Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the connection means of Beroza to be an elastic loop made of the elastic strap end as taught by the Hurwitz to minimize production cost by eliminating additional attachment components.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hurwitz (US Patent No. 3,858,881).
The references as applied to claim 13 above does not disclose the loop as being formed of an elastic cord. Hurwitz is an example of a sport’s reference that teaches a loop can be formed as an attachment means to a sport handle (see 46 as shown in Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the connection means of Beroza to be an elastic loop made of the elastic strap end as taught by the Hurwitz to minimize production cost by eliminating additional attachment components.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0145658) in view of Beroza and Czaja et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2003/0176227).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, Yang golf assist device (see all Figures), comprising: a support assembly including: a frame (see the combinations of the two female buckle elements (33) as shown in Figures 2-4); a first belt extending from a first belt end to a second belt end (the combination of the strap elements 21 and 25 as shown in Figure 2, end section of 21 can be considered as a first end of the first belt end), the first belt end and the second belt end being connected to a first side of the frame (as shown in Figure 2, the left side 33 as shown in Figures 2-4); and a second belt extending from a third belt end to a fourth belt end (the combination of the strap elements 21 and 27 as shown in Figure 2, end section of 23 is considered as a third belt end and the end section of 27 being connected to element 33), the third belt end and the fourth belt end being connected to a second side of the frame, opposite the first side (as shown in Figure 2, the right side 33 as shown in Figures 2-4). Yang does not disclose a strap assembly removably coupled to the support assembly, the strap assembly including: a first connecting structure connected with the second belt; a second connecting structure including a loop adapted to be engaged with a handle of a golf club; a strap connected with the first connecting structure and the second connecting structure, when the strap is extended, a first length from connection to the second belt to connection with the golf club is less than at least two times a second length of the second belt when the second belt is extended.
Beroza discloses an exercise device that could be used in golf (10 and see paragraph 4 that discloses that the device could be used for golf). Beroza teaches a torso harness that has similar structure like the Yang reference that is placeable on the torso of the user. The harness has multiple clips (33,35,37,39,41 as shown in Figure 4) and two strap assemblies that each has connecting structures at each of the straps (as disclosed in paragraph 32, elements 47 and 49 has claps 59 and 61 that are connecting structures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to modify the device of Yang to include multiple clips at different locations and a strap assembly that has connecting structures so that the device of Yang could have a multiple use of being a golf back carrying device and at the same time to be capable of being used as a an exercise device for enhancing muscle memory and strength device as discussed in paragraph 7 of the Beroza reference. Beroza discloses the “ harness is secured on the user by draping it over the shoulders and fastening the straps 17, 19. The straps 17 and 19 may be provided with an adjustment means 18, 20 (FIG. 4) which are well known to those skilled in the art to facilitate adjustment of strap length. One or more elastic cords such as the cords 47, 49 may suitably be coupled to the vest or harness 11 using the rings shown in the embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 1-6 in particular with the last loop or ring through which a cord extends being determined based upon the desired exercise. Thus, for example, for practicing overhand or three quarter shots, the cord is extended through one or the other of the rings 33, 35. For side arm shots, the cord may be extended through the ring 33 or 35 and then 37. For underhanded shots, the cord may finally be extended through the rings 39, 41 (FIGS. 1-4) or 89, 91 in the case of the embodiment of FIGS. 5-6. In any event, the multiplicity of rings or loops provides a great variety of options for the wearer to practice a variety of motions carrying a sports implement such as a lacrosse stick, hockey stick or baseball bat to facilitate creating muscle memory while swinging the sports implement in desired directions”. Beroza is considered as teaching an equivalent form of adjustability by allowing a strap end to be secured to any of several rings positioned at different pointed on the harness. In addition, Czaja is one example of reference that teaches a golf swing training apparatus that comprises a torso harness (see the harness positioned on the torso of the person as shown in Figure 13 and an adjustable strap element being secured between the harness and the golf club (12). Regarding the second connecting structure including a loop adapted to be engaged with a handle of a golf club, Czaja discloses the use of a loop (30) as being a flexible yet resilient material such as a synthetic organic polymer in paragraph 43. See also Figures 9-10). It is noted that Czaja does not explicitly disclose the strap as having a first length and a second length as recited in claims 1, 6 and 7.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the connecting structure to resemble any shape including the recited shapes and lengths, because Applicant has not disclosed the specific shape and dimensions provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Both the adjustable strap means of Beroza and Czaja are considered to represent a predictable and equivalent modification that achieves the same functional purpose of accommodating different users’ needs. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the connecting structures as taught by Beroza or Czaja or the claimed shape and length measurements because all members perform the same function of allowing to connect a strap element from a torso harness to a golf club handle to allow a user to practice maneuvering golf skills and trainings. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Yang in view of Beroza to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the first connecting structure includes a hook. Beroza discloses the use of connecting a hook (59) between the strap assembly (47) and the second belt (31). For example, as shown in Figure 3, strap 47 is flexible and movable and it can be considered that hook 59 is positioned between the strap and the belt as recited).
Regarding claim 3, Czaja does not disclose wherein the loop is formed of an elastic cord. Substituting Czaja’s flexible clamp assembly with a simple elastic cord to attach the strap element to the golf club would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because both components serve the same basic function, proving a flexible, compliant connection that can stretch and that can be repositioned. An elastic cord is a well-known, widely used, and straight forward alternative to more complex clamp mechanisms for securing items together. Using elastic cord would simplify the structure, reduce cost, and improve ease of use, while still achieving the same functional result taught by Czaja. As such, replacing the flexible clap assembly with elastic cord represents a predictable and routine design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches wherein the frame (the assembly of the two buckle elements 33 as shown in Figure 4) includes four outwardly extending arms (the areas that extend out being attached to elements 21,23,25 and 27 are extending arms), each arm including an opening for receiving one of the first belt end, the second belt end, the third belt end and the fourth belt end.
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses wherein each of the first belt and the second belt include a buckle to adjust a length of the first belt and the second belt, respectively (see the buckle on each of strap ends of support straps 25 and 27 as shown in Figure 6).
Conclusion
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINI F LEGESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4412. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Nicholas J. Weiss can be reached at (571) 207-1775. 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.
/NINI F LEGESSE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711