DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11952708 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 1 anticipates claim 1.
Claims 2-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-5, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. US 11952708 B1 because they are identical.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 11952708 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 6 anticipates claim 8.
Claims 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-13, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. US 11952708 B1 because they are identical.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 7716849 B1) in view of Ellenburg (US 5983518 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hicks discloses an apparatus for drying moisture from a golf glove having a palm section and ventilated fingers, said apparatus comprising:
a) a housing defining an internal chamber and a throat section (Fig. 2; 6), wherein said
throat section has a substantially cylindrical shape defining a central outlet (Fig. 3; 18), and a
plurality of elongated transverse outlet vents (16) extending through said throat section;
Hicks fails to disclose:
b) a fan disposed in said internal chamber, wherein said fan is oriented to
direct air flow through said central outlet and said plurality of elongated transverse outlet
vents extending through said throat section;
c) a power source for powering said fan;
d) a first flexible yet rigid loop that extends across said central outlet of said
throat member and is configured to be received within the palm section of a golf glove,
wherein a portion of said palm section of said golf glove is positioned adjacent to at
least one of said elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat
section, and wherein a portion of said air flow from said fan is directed at said palm
section of said golf glove.
However, Ellenburg teaches a glove dryer comprising:
b) a fan (Fig. 3; 52) disposed in said internal chamber, wherein said fan is oriented to
direct air flow through said central outlet (16);
c) a power source (56) for powering said fan;
d) a first flexible yet rigid loop (18) (see Comment 1 below regarding the flexible limitation) that extends across said central outlet of said and is configured to be received within the palm section of a golf glove, and wherein a portion of said air flow from said fan is directed at said palm section of said golf glove.
Comment 1. It is unclear if the loops (18) are flexible from the reference; however, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application where the loops are made of a flexible material such as plastic, since plastics are cheap and durable yet lightweight.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hicks to include b) a fan disposed in said internal chamber, wherein said fan is oriented to direct air flow through said central outlet and said plurality of elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat section; and c) a power source for powering said fan. The motivation to combine is so that the glove dryer can be made portable by having its own drying air system.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hicks to include d) a first flexible yet rigid loop that extends across said central outlet of said throat member and is configured to be received within the palm section of a golf glove, wherein a portion of said palm section of said golf glove is positioned adjacent to at least one of said elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat section, and wherein a portion of said air flow from said fan is directed at said palm section of said golf glove. The motivation to combine is so to help stretch the glove open so that it can be dried more quickly.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hicks discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, except further comprising a control for selectively adjusting the speed of said fan. However, Official Notice is taken that a speed controller for a fan is well-known and common knowledge, and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Hicks to include a control for selectively adjusting the speed of said fan so that the drying rate can be set as desired
Regarding claim 3, modified Hicks discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein said power source comprises at least one Battery (56), except where it is a rechargeable battery. However, Official Notice is taken that using a rechargeable battery for a fan is well-known and common knowledge, and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Hicks where the battery is a rechargeable battery so that the battery can be reused.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hicks discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising at least one aperture in said housing for receiving a golf tee, a compass, a speaker, a wind gauge, a golf ball holder, a brush, a marker, a divot repair tool, or a combination thereof (Hicks discloses a slot 12 that can be used to hold an of the list items).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hicks discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) a method for drying moisture from a golf glove having a lower opening, a palm section and ventilated fingers, said method comprising: a) providing a dryer apparatus comprising: (i) a housing defining an internal chamber and a throat section, wherein said throat section has a substantially cylindrical shape defining a central outlet, and a plurality of elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat section; (ii) a fan disposed in said internal chamber, wherein said fan is oriented to direct air flow through said central outlet and said plurality of elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat section; (iii) a power source for powering said fan; and (iv) a first flexible yet rigid loop that extends across said central outlet of said throat member; b) installing said lower opening around said throat section, wherein said flexible yet rigid loop is received within said palm section of a golf glove and a portion of said palm section of said golf glove is positioned adjacent to at least one of said elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat section; c) operating said fan to direct a first portion of air flow through said plurality of elongated transverse outlet vents at said palm section of said golf glove, and a second portion of said air flow into said golf glove and out of ventilations in said ventilated fingers of said golf glove.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 8, except wherein said dryer apparatus further comprises a control for selectively adjusting the speed of said fan. However, see the modification made for the rejection of claim 2
Regarding claim 10, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 8, except wherein said power source comprises at least one rechargeable battery. However, see the modification made for the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 8, except wherein said dryer apparatus is secured to a golf bag. However, the limitation is obvious. Hicks discloses that the dryer apparatus can be attached to a golf cart, and it would have been obvious at the effective filing date to place the dryer apparatus in a golf bag when transporting the dryer apparatus to and from the golf cart.
Regarding claim 14, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 8, wherein said housing further comprises at least one aperture in said housing for receiving a golf tee, a compass, a speaker, a wind gauge, a golf ball holder, a brush, a marker, a divot repair tool, or a combination thereof (see rejection of claim 5).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 8, wherein said flexible yet rigid loops are positioned out of alignment with each other (see Fig. 2 of Ellenburg).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 7716849 B1) in view of Ellenburg (US 5983518 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Durham (US 20210222353 A1)
Regarding claim 4, modified Hicks discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, except wherein said housing further comprises a substantially cylindrical base for being received in a cup holder of a conventional golf cart.
However, Durham teaches a glove dryer wherein said housing further comprises a substantially cylindrical base for being received in a cup holder of a vehicle (para. 51).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Hicks wherein said housing further comprises a substantially
cylindrical base for being received in a cup holder of a conventional golf cart. The motivation to combine is so that the gloves can be stably positioned while drying inside a vehicle such as a golf cart.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hicks discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, except further comprising at least one heating element.
However, Durham teaches a glove dryer comprising at least one heating element (120/220b; para. 101). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to further modify Hicks to include at least one heating element (positioned upstream or downstream the fan) in order to reduce the drying time.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hicks discloses the apparatus of Claim 6, wherein said at least one heating element is configured to heat air flow that is directed by said fan through said central outlet and said plurality of elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat section (Durham discloses a heating element 120 for heating the air from the fan 115, and in the combination, the heated airflow would be directed through the central outlet and the transverse outlet vents).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 8, except wherein said housing further comprises a substantially cylindrical base for being received in a cup holder of a conventional golf cart. However, see the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 11, wherein said dryer apparatus is received within said cup holder of the conventional golf cart.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 8, except wherein said dryer apparatus further comprises at least one heating element. However, see the modification made for the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, modified Hicks discloses the method of Claim 16, wherein said at least one heating element is configured to heat air flow that is directed by said fan through said central outlet and said plurality of elongated transverse outlet vents extending through said throat section (Durham discloses a heating element 120 for heating the air from the fan 115, and in the combination, the heated airflow would be directed through the central outlet and the transverse outlet vents).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights