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 § 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 1, 5, 6, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rouse (US Patent No. 5,152,532).
Regarding claim 1, golf training apparatus (10), comprising: a member (11) having one or more channels (15) configured to receive and retain a rod (12); and attachment means (loop fasteners 19 and hook fasteners 4) for removably attaching said member to a rear and/or palm surface of a golf glove (as shown in Figures 3-4, the apparatus is attached to glove (1)).
Regarding claim 5, wherein said attachments means is selected from the group consisting of hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, pockets, projection and grooves and magnets (the fastening means are loop fasteners 19 and hook fasteners 4).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a strap (17) connected to said member (11).
Regarding claim 13, Rouse discloses a golf training system (see assembly as shown in Figures 3-5) comprising: one or more rods (12); a member (11) having one or more channels (15) configured to receive and retain one or more of said rods (12); a golf glove (1); and attachment means (loop fasteners 19 and hook fasteners 4) for removably attaching said member to a rear and/or palm surface of said golf glove (as shown in Figures 3-4, the apparatus is attached to glove (1)).
Regarding claim 17, wherein said attachment means is selected from the group consisting of hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, pockets, projection and grooves and magnets (the fastening means are loop fasteners 19 and hook fasteners 4).
Regarding claim 18, wherein said attachment means is a strap (17) connected to said member (11).
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 3, 4, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouse.
Rouse discloses the invention as discussed in the claims above and discloses the member as having a rectangular shape s shown in Figures 1-5 but does not explicitly disclose if the member could be semi-spherical or cylindrical. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rectangular member of Rouse to a semi-spherical or cylindrical shape as recited in these claims because the reference teaches all other aspects of the training device and changing the member’s shape is a routine design choice. Semi-spherical and cylindrical shapes are well-known alternatives that provide predictable results without altering the device’s function, and their selection would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouse in view of Pepe et al. (US Patent No. 8,777,769).
Rouse discloses in column 9 lines 24-39 that “the attachment 10 of the present invention may be used not only for vertically and horizontally orienting the golfer's hands in proper position at the start of the golf stroke and for indicating if the club is parallel to the flight path of the ball, but it is also useful for showing if the golfer's wrists are collapsing which will be revealed by the pointer 12 being oriented in directions or manners other than has been discussed above relative to the vertical plane of the target line of direction and the horizontal plane of the ground. Obviously, many modifications may be made without departing from the basic spirit of the present invention. Accordingly, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that within the scope of the appended claims, the invention may be practiced other than has been specifically described herein”. This teaches that other modification including where the attachment member could be located is possible. Rouse does not explicitly disclose the member attached to a palm surface of the golf resting on a hamate bone of the hand of the user as recited. However, Pepe is an example of a golf training device that teaches the concept of indicia that is located on the palm section of the glove (see indicator 130 as shown on the palm area of the glove as shown in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the indicator at any location including the palm area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 7 and 9-12are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouse in view of Campbell et al. (US Patent No. 3,124,806).
Regarding claim 7, Rouse discloses a golf training apparatus (10), comprising: a member (12) having one or more channels (15) configured to receive and retain a rod (12); and a golf glove (1) for receiving a retaining said member to a rear and/or palm surface of said golf glove (see Figures 3-5). Rouse does not disclose the golf glove having one or more pockets and the pockets having one or more openings corresponding to said one or more channels. He use of pocket on a golf glove to receive and retaining a training member is not a new concept and Campbell is one example of reference that teaches the use of a pocket (see pocket (14) as shown in Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rouse by replacing the hook-and-loop fasteners with a pocket as taught by Campbell as an alternative attachment means. Rouse teaches releasably securing a member for ease of attachment and removal, while Campbell teaches retaining a member within a pocket to achieve the same function. A pocket is a well-known, predictable substitute for hook-and-loop fasteners, and the substitution would have yielded predictable results without altering the operation of Rouse. It also would have been obvious to provide an opening or channel in the pocket to receive the protruding rod (12) of Rouse, as accommodating protruding structures is a routine design consideration to ensure proper seating and alignment. The combination represents the sue of known purposes and therefore would have been obvious over Rouse in view of Campbell.
Regarding claims 9-10, Rouse discloses the member as having a rectangular shape as shown in Figures 1-5 but does not explicitly disclose if the member could be semi-spherical or cylindrical. It is noted that the shape of the weight (18) as shown in Figure 2 of the Campbell reference as being shown as having a semi-spherical shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rectangular member of Rouse to a semi-spherical or cylindrical shape as recited in these claims because the reference teaches all other aspects of the training device and changing the member’s shape is a routine design choice. Semi-spherical and cylindrical shapes are well-known alternatives that provide predictable results without altering the device’s function, and their selection would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Rouse discloses attachments means for attaching one or more members to said golf glove selected from the group consisting of hook and loop fasteners, snaps, buttons, projection and grooves and magnets (the fastening means are loop fasteners 19 and hook fasteners 4)
Regarding claim 12, further comprising a strap connected to said member. The use of a strap in the Rouse reference is shown as component 17 that has hook and loop fasteners as shown in Figures 3-5. The use of straps being attached to the member element is taught by the Campbell reference ((see components 23 as shown in the embodiment as shown in Figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rouse in view of Campbell to have strap as recited in the instant claim because this can be considered as an alternative connecting means and as a routine design choice. Using any kind of attachment means including pocket or strap are well-known alternatives that provide predictable results without altering the device’s function, and their selection would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim7 above, and further in view of Pepe et al.
Rouse discloses in column 9 lines 24-39 that “the attachment 10 of the present invention may be used not only for vertically and horizontally orienting the golfer's hands in proper position at the start of the golf stroke and for indicating if the club is parallel to the flight path of the ball, but it is also useful for showing if the golfer's wrists are collapsing which will be revealed by the pointer 12 being oriented in directions or manners other than has been discussed above relative to the vertical plane of the target line of direction and the horizontal plane of the ground. Obviously, many modifications may be made without departing from the basic spirit of the present invention. Accordingly, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that within the scope of the appended claims, the invention may be practiced other than has been specifically described herein”. This teaches that other modification including where the attachment member could be located is possible. Rouse does not explicitly disclose the member attached to a palm surface of the golf resting on a hamate bone of the hand of the user as recited. However, Pepe is an example of a golf training device that teaches the concept of indicia that is located on the palm section of the glove (see indicator 130 as shown on the palm area of the glove as shown in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the indicator at any location including the palm area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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