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 4, 5, 7, 11 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation "The golf putting training device according to claim 4" appears to depend on itself and should have been "The golf putting training device according to claim 3."
Regarding claim 5, the recitation "the top hole" lacks proper antecedent basis and should have been "a top hole."
Regarding claim 7, the recitation "an integral piece" is not otherwise defined. However, the specification properly enables the structure of the integral piece to mean monolithically formed (See paragraphs 50, 53, 63-6). Accordingly, for purposes of examination, the structure required for the claim language has been interpreted to be consistent with the Applicants specification.
Regarding claim 11, the expression “its central axis” in claim 11 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation "the top hole" lacks proper antecedent basis and should have been "a top hole."
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 1-3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vasquez (US Patent No. 5,203,568).
Regarding Claim 1, Vasquez discloses a golf putting training device (23, Fig. 1-3; see abstract), which comprises: a central body (27, Fig. 1-3; col 2, In 66-68, col 3, In 1-3) having a top (Fig. 2-3 - the top end of body 27) and bottom (Fig. 2-3 - the bottom end of body 27); an upper arm (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10) and a lower arm (37, Fig. 1-3) attached to said central body (27, Fig. 1-3), wherein said upper (35, Fig. 1-3) and lower arms (37, Fig. 1-3) extend laterally from said central body (27, Fig. 1-3) in generally opposite directions and said upper arm (35, Fig. 1-3) being located closer to the top (Fig. 2-3 - the top end of body 27) of said central body (27, Fig. 1-3) than said lower arm (37, Fig. 1-3); a forearm support member (39, 41, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 16-26) attached to each of said upper (35, Fig. 1-3) and lower arms (37, Fig. 1- 3) and extending away from said central body (27, Fig. 1-3); and a shaft (25, Fig. 1-3; col 2, In 61-65) attached to the bottom (Fig. 2-3 - the bottom end of body 27) of said central body (27, Fig. 1-3; col 2, In 66-68, col 3, In 1-3) and extending downwardly.
Regarding Claim 2, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 1, wherein the central axes (Fig. 1-3 - the downward extending axis of arm 35 is not parallel to the horizontal extending axis of arm 37) of the upper (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10) and lower arms (37, Fig. 1-3) are not parallel to each other.
Regarding Claim 3, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 2, wherein said upper arm (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10) is angled downwardly (Fig. 1-3 - the downward angle of arm 35) relative to a horizontal direction (Fig. 1-3 - the horizontal direction) and said lower arm (37, Fig. 1-3) extends substantially along the horizontal direction (Fig. 1-3 - the horizontal extending axis of arm 37 is along the horizontal direction).
Regarding Claim 6, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 1 above, wherein said shaft (25, Fig. 1-3; col 2, In 61-65) is dimensioned to extend along the outside of a putter grip (21, Fig. 1-2 - the exterior of grip 21).
Regarding Claim 9, VASQUEZ discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 1 above, wherein each of said forearm support members (39, 41, Fig.1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 16-26) extend in a curved fashion so as to provide a concave support member (39, 41, Fig.1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 16-26) for the golfer's forearms (11, 13, Fig. 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 4, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasquez.
Regarding Claim 4, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 3 but does not specifically teach wherein said upper arm is angled downwardly between 15 degrees and 60 degrees relative to the horizontal. It is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and it is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the downward angle of the upper arm. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the downward angle of the upper arm to better
fit a player's physical characteristics, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
Regarding Claim 6, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to any one of claim 1, wherein said shaft (25, Fig. 1-3; col 2, In 61-65) is dimensioned to extend along the outside of a putter grip (21, Fig. 1-2-the exterior of grip 21).
Regarding Claim 9, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 1 above, wherein each of said forearm support members (39, 41, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 16-26) extend in a curved fashion so as to provide a concave support member (39, 41, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 16-26) for the golfer's forearms (11, 13, Fig. 2).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasquez in view of Keefer (US Patent No. 5,259,621).
Regarding Claim 5, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to any one of claims 1-4 but does not specifically teach wherein said shaft is a rod sized to fit within a top hole of a golf putter grip. However, Keefer discloses a golf putting training device (Fig. 2A-19; see abstract), wherein a shaft (50, Fig.19; col 4, In 11-14) is a rod (50, Fig. 19; col 7, In 3-16) sized to fit within a top hole (Fig. 19 - the top hole of the grip of the golf putter; col 7, In 3-16) of a golf putter grip (Fig. 19 - the grip of the golf putter). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have used the shaft of Keefer for the shaft of Vasquez to provide a stabilizing coupling between the training device and the putter.
Regarding Claim 10, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 9 but does not explicitly teach wherein said concave support member is lined with a cushion material. However, Keefer discloses a golf putting training device (Fig. 2A-19; see abstract), wherein a concave support member (11a, 11b, Fig. 3; col 4, In 53-62) is lined with a cushion material (15a-b, Fig. 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have added the cushion of Keefer for the concave support member of Vasquez to protect the golfer's forearm during use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasquez in view of Allen (US Patent No. 6,343,997).
Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device as discussed in claim 1 above but does not explicitly teach wherein said central body, said upper and lower arms, and said forearm support members are an integral piece (Note: See Box VIII). However, Allen teaches a golf putting training device (10, Fig. 1-3; see abstract wherein a central body (18, Fig. 3; col 3, In 22-35), upper (62, Fig. 3; col 5, In 31-47) and lower arms (20, Fig. 3), and a forearm support member (56, Fig. 3) are an integral piece (Fig. 3 - the monolithic piece of the golf training device 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have used a monolithic piece for said central body, said upper and lower arms, and said forearm support members of Vasquez to increase the stability of the golf putting training device and to allow for easier manufacturing of the golf putting training device.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasquez in view of Ryan (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0040770).
Regarding Claim 11, Vasquez discloses the golf putting training device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said upper (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10) and lower arms is slidably movable along its central axis (Fig. 1-3 - the downward extending axis of arm 35) but does not specifically teach wherein at least one of said upper and lower arms is slidably movable along its central axis against a spring bias to the extended direction. However, Ryan teaches a golf putting training device (Fig. 14-20; see abstract) wherein at least one of said upper (57, Fig. 17, Fig. 19) and lower arms is slidably movable along its central axis (Fig. 19 - the axis of 57) against a spring bias (55, Fig. 17, Fig. 19) to the extended direction (see paragraphs 137-138). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have used the spring and upper arm of Ryan for the upper arm of Vasquez to create a resilient spacing between the player's forearms providing a more comfortable golf putting training device.
Regarding Claim 12, Vasquez and Ryan discloses the modified golf putting training device according to claim 11, Vasquez teaches wherein said at least one slidably movable arm (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10) is at least said upper arm (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10).
Regarding Claim 13, Vasquez and Ryan discloses the modified golf pulling training device according to claim 12, Vasquez teaches wherein said upper arm (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10) is angled downwardly (Fig. 1-3 - the downward angle of arm 35) relative to a horizontal direction (Fig. 1-3 - the horizontal direction) and said lower arm (37, Fig. 1-3) extends substantially along the horizontal direction (Fig. 1-3 - the horizontal extending axis of arm 37 is along the horizontal direction).
Regarding Claim 14, Vasquez and Ryan discloses the modified golf putting training device according to claim 13, Vasquez teaches wherein said upper (35, Fig. 1-3; col 3, In 3-10) and lower arms (37, Fig. 1-3) are slidably movable along their central axis (Fig. 1-3 - the downward extending axis of arm 35 and the horizontal extending axis of arm 37) into upper (Fig. 2-3 - the hole of collar 31) and lower recesses (Fig. 2-3 - the hole of collar 33), respectively, that are provided in said central body (27, Fig. 1-3; col 2, In 66-68, col 3, In 1-3).
Regarding Claim 15, Vasquez and Ryan discloses the modified golf putting training device according to claim 14, Vasquez does not specifically teach which further comprises a spring holder in each of said upper and lower recesses, each of said spring holders defining a cavity to accommodate said arm and a spring for said spring bias. However, Ryan teaches a golf putting training device (Fig. 14-20; see abstract) further comprises a spring holder (56, Fig. 17) in said upper recess (58, Fig. 19), said spring holder (56, Fig. 17) defining a cavity to accommodate said arm (57, Fig. 17, Fig. 19) and a spring (55, Fig. 17, Fig. 19) for said spring bias (paragraphs 137-138). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have used the spring, upper arm, and spring holder of Ryan for the upper arm of Vasquez to create a resilient spacing between the player's forearms providing a more comfortable golf putting training device.
Regarding Claim 16, Vasquez and Ryan discloses the modified golf putting training device according to claim 11, Vasquez teaches wherein each of said forearm support members (39, 41, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 16-26) extend in a curved fashion so as to provide a concave support member (39, 41, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; col 3, In 16-26) for the golfer's forearms (11, 13, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Vasquez and Ryan discloses the modified golf putting training device according to claim 16, Vasquez does not specifically teach wherein said concave support member is lined with a cushion material. However, RYAN teaches a golf putting training device (Fig. 14-20; see abstract) wherein said forearm support members (44, Fig. 14-15) is lined with a cushion material (54, Fig. 14, Fig. 17; paragraph 135). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have added the cushion of Ryan for the concave support member of Vasquez to protect the golfer's forearm during use.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Keffer.
Regarding claim 8, Vasquez in view of Allen disclose the modified golf putting training device according to claim 7 but does not explicitly teach wherein said shaft is removable. However, Keefer discloses a golf putting training device (Fig. 2A-19; see abstract), wherein a shaft (50, Fig. 19; col 4, In 11-14) is removable (col 7, In 3-16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have used the shaft of Keefer for the shaft of Vasquez to provide a removable stabilizing coupling between the training device and the putter.
Regarding Claim 18, Vasquez in view of Allen disclose the modified golf putting training device according to claim 11 but does not specifically teach wherein said shaft is a rod sized to fit within a top hole of a golf putter grip. However, Keefer discloses a golf putting training device (Fig. 2A-19; see abstract), wherein a shaft (50, Fig. 19; col 4, In 11-14) is a rod (50, Fig. 19; col 7, In 3-16} sized to fit within a top hole (Fig. 19 - the top hole of the grip of the golf putter; col 7, In 3-16) of a golf putter grip (Fig. 19- the grip of the golf putter). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have used the shaft of Keefer for the shaft of Vasquez to provide a stabilizing coupling between the training device and the putter.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flood (US Patent No. 7,033,282) discloses a golf training device with central body upper and lower arms, forearm support member and shaft (see all figures).
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 Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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