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 .
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 “sensor” of claim 7 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 § 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.
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 1-5, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox (US 5174574 A) in view of Fuller (US 6595864 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Knox teaches a golf ball (22) putting practice apparatus (Abstract), the apparatus comprising: a trap (Fig. 3; enclosure-12 containing the golf ball); a detector (transmitter-26 and receivers-28,30) configured to detect that the golf ball has entered the trap (column 3, lines 22-68); a golf ball returner (40) configured to provide (column 3, lines 66--68), with or without a delay (column 6, lines 53-36), a substantially horizontal (column 4, lines 43-48; Fig. 3) impulse to return the golf ball (22) along the playing surface in dependence upon detection that the golf ball has entered the trap (column 3, lines 66-8; column 4, lines 1-14). Knox does not teach a trap configured to trap a golf ball between a surface of the trap and a playing surface on which the apparatus is placed, wherein an inclination of the trap relative to the playing surface is configured or controllable to trap the golf ball. However, Fuller teaches a trap (Fig. 3) configured to trap a golf ball (100) between a top surface of the trap (12) and bottom surface of the trap (14), wherein an inclination of a bottom surface (14) of the trap relative to the top surface (12) of the trap is configured or controllable to trap the golf ball (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 11-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the putting apparatus of Knox with a “top” surface to aid with trapping the ball as taught by Fuller to better trap or control the ball to provide a trap that would trap a golf ball between a surface of the trap and a playing surface on which the apparatus is placed.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Knox (Fuller) teaches wherein the trap (Fig. 3) is arranged to form a converging duct (60) between a surface of the trap and the playing surface, in which the golf ball is trapped as the golf ball moves into the converging duct (col.5, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 3, Knox teaches wherein the detector comprises an emitter (transmitter-26) and a receiver (elements 28,30).
Regarding claim 4, Knox teaches wherein the emitter (26) comprises an electromagnetic radiation (“infrared”; col.3, lines 22-25) beam (beams 32 and 34) generator (col. 3, lines 22-51); and the receiver (28,30) comprises an electromagnetic beam receiver (col. 3, lines 22-51), the electromagnetic beam receiver configured to receive a beam of electromagnetic radiation generated by the electromagnetic radiation beam generator; wherein the detector detects that a golf ball (22) has entered the trap when the beam of electromagnetic radiation from the electromagnetic radiation beam generator to the electromagnetic beam receiver is interrupted by the golf ball in the trap (col. 3, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 5, Knox teaches wherein the electromagnetic radiation generated by the electromagnetic radiation beam (beams 32 and 34) generator comprises one of visual light, infra-red radiation (“infrared”; col.3, lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Knox (Fuller) teaches wherein the trap comprises at least one of grooves (26) (col. 2, line 50), dimples and/or an elastomeric material to retain the golf ball.
Regarding claim 14, Knox teaches wherein return of the golf ball (22) by the golf ball returner (40) is additionally dependent upon a second control signal (microprocessor-84 receives signals from two receivers 28 and 30; col. 5, lines 46-48 ).
Regarding claim 15, Knox teaches wherein the apparatus (10) comprises at least one mechanical interface (mechanical components involved with moving paddle-40 to putt the golf ball-22) and at least one electrical interface (microprocessor-84) (Fig. 1), the at least one mechanical interface and at least one electrical interface being configured to connect the apparatus to a compatible apparatus of a putting practice system (col.5, lines 45-65).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Fuller, further in view of Foley (US 20100178995 A1),andBurrows (AU 2014295818 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Knox teaches wherein the golf ball returner comprises: a ball striker plate (40), configured to provide the substantially horizontal impulse to the ball (claim 1; Fig. 3); a motor (54).
Knox does not teach a camshaft, comprising at least one cam lobe, the motor mechanically coupled to the camshaft; a cam follower, mechanically coupled to the ball striker plate and configured to be contactable with and diseangagable from at least one cam lobe of the camshaft, in response to rotation of the camshaft by the motor; and a spring (paragraph 341-Burrows), configured to bias the cam follower, causing the ball striker plate to provide the substantially horizontal impulse to the golf ball when the cam follower is disengaged from the at least one cam lobe.
However, Foley teaches a cam (30), comprising at least one cam lobe (Fig. 6; corners/lobes shown on element-30), the motor mechanically coupled to the cam (paragraph 31); the cam mechanically coupled to the ball striker plate (ejector arm 40); and a spring (42), configured to bias the cam (Fig. 6) (paragraph 41,first sentence), causing the ball striker plate (40) to provide a substantial impulse to the golf ball.
Foley does not teach a camshaft, a cam follower configured to be contactable with and disengageable from at least one cam lobe of the camshaft, in response to rotation of the camshaft by the motor, and a spring, configured to bias the cam follower, causing the ball striker plate to provide the substantially horizontal impulse to the golf ball when the cam follower is disengaged from the at least one cam lobe. However, a cam follower configured to be contactable with and disengageable from at least one cam lobe of the camshaft, in response to rotation of the camshaft by the motor is common in the art of camshafts and does not present a novel concept. In this regard, Burrows teaches a cam follower (1577) (Fig. 18b) configured to be contactable with and disengageable from at least one cam lobe (“first cam lobe”, “second cam lobe”) of the camshaft (1580), in response to rotation of the camshaft (paragraphs 340-341), and a spring, configured to bias the cam follower (paragraph 341). Regarding the camshaft providing a horizontal impulse to the golf ball, Foley teaches a vertical impulse to the golf ball. However, a rearrangement of parts can achieve a horizontal impulse by arranging the camshaft of Burrows to enable the force in the spring to exert a horizontal force on the ball. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the particular placement of an element in a device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to substitute the ball return mechanism of the putter apparatus of modified Knox with the camshaft mechanism taught by Foley and Burrows to provide a ball return mechanism with precise movements to promote consistency with the ball being returned to a user.
Regarding claim 8, Foley teaches wherein the motor is mechanically coupled to the cam (cam-30) via a gearbox (50) (paragraph 43, first sentence).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Fuller, Foley, and of Burrows as applied to claims 6 and 8 above, further in view of Boekhoorn (US 20110049187 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Knox teaches the golf ball returner (10); wherein following receipt of a control signal (col. 5, lines 45-48; col. 8, lines 14-17, “beam 34”), the motor (54) drives the golf ball returner (40). Knox does not teach wherein the golf ball returner (10) comprises a camshaft orientation sensor; and wherein following receipt of a control signal, the motor rotates the camshaft by 360/n degrees, wherein n is the number of the at least one lobe of the camshaft and the rotation of the camshaft is sensed by the camshaft orientation sensor. However, the aforementioned camshaft elements are not novel and would be obvious to one of skill in the art. Boekhoorn teaches a camshaft (20), camshaft orientation sensor (position sensor-46) (paragraph 35); and wherein following receipt of a control signal (paragraph 13, last four sentences, “control unit”), the motor (19) rotates the camshaft and the rotation of the camshaft is sensed by the camshaft orientation sensor (paragraph 13, last four sentences). Boekhoorn does not teach that the motor rotates the camshaft by 360/n degrees. However, rotating the camshaft by 360 degrees is common practice in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Knox with the camshaft mechanism of Boekhoorn to return the golf ball during practice.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Fuller, further in view of Burrows, further in view of Foley, further in view of Barnes (US 4290603 A).
Regarding claim 9, Knox does not teach wherein the impulse provided by the golf ball returner to the golf ball is adjustable by adjusting a degree of bias of the spring. However, Barnes teaches wherein the impulse provided by the golf ball returner to the golf ball is adjustable by adjusting a degree of bias of the spring (col. 2, lines 36-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Knox in view of Fuller, further in view of Goldberger (US 20230014375 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Knox does not teach wherein the inclination of the trap (taught by Fuller) to the playing surface is controllable. However, Goldberger teaches wherein the inclination of the trap (paragraph 30; “prevention mechanism”) is controllable based on the pressure from an incoming ball (paragraph 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the trap of the modified Knox (taught by Fuller) with the trap taught by Goldberger to move the trap based on the location of the ball to capture the ball in a controlled manner
Regarding claim 12, Goldberger teaches where the apparatus comprises an actuator (1001), the actuator being mechanically coupled to the trap (Fig. 4a), wherein the inclination of the trap is controllable by the actuator based on the pressure from an incoming ball (paragraph 30).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox in view of Fuller, further in view of Goldberger, further in view of Luciano (US 20120058835 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the modified Knox does not teach wherein the inclination of the trap is controllable by the actuator in response to receipt of the control signal by the actuator. However, Luciano teaches wherein the inclination of the trap (1320) is controllable by the actuator (1318) in response to receipt of the control signal (1314) by the actuator (paragraph 6; claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to provide the trap (taught by Fuller) of modified Knox with the trap holder taught by Goldberger and further providing a control signal by the actuator as taught by Luciano to guide the ball once it enters the trap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-0268. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/SABA N. ALI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711