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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 remain pending in the application. New claim 12 has been added to the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawing and specification have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection. Note discussion of US Publication 2019/0232133 by Ferguson and Foreign Publication KR200399240 by Moon Yong-Bong, below.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026, regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons:
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the examiner has not provided any Prima facie obviousness or motivation to combine references (Page 7), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that that it has been provided in the rejection below. (See the detailed description of the rejections of claim 1, 7, 11-12).
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Scheuer does not teach a golf head cover with a magnetic area integrated into the head cover (Page 8-9), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that the reference that the applicant is referring to is Fox not Scheuer and tag 104 that contains the magnet 106 is integrated into the head cover as it is attached to the head cover. It becomes a part of the headcover when integrated. The claims would need to be tightened to overcome this broad interpretation.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion Regarding Boschan (Page 9), the examiner disagrees, pointing out that Para 52 of Boschan teaches a magnetic fabric. The bag of Boschan is analogous art as it is a bag and is capable of carrying items such as golf equipment. The intended use is different but the concept of the body of the bag material being magnetic s taken from the reference.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion Regarding Chang (Page 9-10), the examiner disagrees, pointing out the bag is analogous art as it is a bag and is capable of carrying items such as golf equipment. The intended use is different but the concept of the body of the bag material being magnetic s taken from the reference.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Claims 1, line 4; Claim 12, line 5) “golf glub head” may be “golf club head”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3128812 issued to Scheurer (Here forth “Scheurer”) in view of US Publication 2008/0047639 by Fox (Here forth “Fox”).
Regarding claim 1, Scheurer discloses an article comprising:
a golf bag having a [Not taught: magnetic] area integrated therein (Fig 1 of Scheurer, the golf bag has a fastening area 30 that is integrated therein to the golf bag and a handle 22 that is integrated to the golf bag as it is attached); and
a golf club head cover having an area [Not taught: attractive to a magnetic] integrated into the golf glub head cover whereby the head cover can be releasably secured to the [Not taught:magnetic] area of bag (Fig 1 of Scheurer, the golf bag 10 has a fastening area 30 integrated with the golf bag around the collar where by head cover 35 can be releasably attached to the bag via the fastener; the golf bag 10 is a golf bag, and the cover 35 is a head cover; Column 3 lines 11-14 of Scheurer, glue is an adhesive that is used to attach fastener portion 33 to the head cover).
Scheurer does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation A: head cover fastener and golf bag fastener are magnetically attracted; the head cover can be releasably secured to the magnetic area of bag
Fox discloses a similar bag that teaches Limitation A, wherein cover fastener and golf bag fastener are magnetically attracted; the head cover can be releasably secured to the magnetic area of bag (Fig 17 of Fox, head cover 506 is magnetically attracted via 104 that contains a magnet 106 that attracts to magnet 106 on the golf bag).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Scheurer and Fox before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the bag of Scheurer to modify the hook and Loop strip portions attached to the top end of the golf bag and the disk shaped hook and loop portion attached to the head cover to be magnets, as taught by Fox, to advantageously be able to quickly attach and remove items from the bag surface.
Regarding claim 3, Scheurer includes all of the limitations including where the magnetic area is located near a top of the golf bag adjacent to head covers (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Fig 1 of Scheurer, the modified Scheurer has a magnetic strip wrapped around the top end of the golf bag).
Regarding claim 4, Scheurer includes all of the limitations including where the area attractive to a magnetic is a disk (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Fig 1 of Scheurer, the modified Scheurer has a magnetic disc that is attached to the head cover that attaches to the magnetic strip wrapped around the top portion of the golf bag).
Regarding claim 5, Scheurer further discloses where the disk is attached to the head cover after manufacture (This is a structural claim not a method claim. Because the fastening strip 30 and disc 33 are located on the exterior portions of the bag and head cover, it is possible for the disk to be attached after manufacture).
Regarding claim 6, Scheurer further discloses where the disk is embedded into the head cover at the time of manufacture (This is a structural claim not a method claim. Because the fastening strip 30 and disc 33 are located on the exterior portions of the bag and head cover, it is possible for the disk to be attached during manufacture).
Regarding claim 9, Scheurer as modified includes all of the limitations including where the area attractive to a magnetic is a disk secured to the head cover with an adhesive (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1; Column 3 lines 11-14 of Scheurer, glue is an adhesive that is used to attach fastener portion 33 to the head cover; the modified Scheurer has the fastening disk be a magnetic disk).
Regarding claim 10, Scheurer as modified includes all of the limitations including comprising multiple magnetic areas on the bag (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Scheuer as modified modifies the hoop and loop fastening strip around the top portion to be a magnetic strip, allowing for multiple magnetic areas on the bag).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheurer and Fox in view of US Publication 2017/0020250 by Bosechan (Here forth “Bosechan”).
Regarding claim 7, Scheurer as modified does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation B: magnetic fabric
Bosechan discloses a similar bag capable of holding golf equipment that teaches Limitation B, where the area attractive to the magnet of the golf club head cover comprised of a fabric attractive to a magnet (Para 52 of Bosechan, bag can be comprised of a magnetic fabric that attracts magnets).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Scheurer and Bosechan before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the bag of Scheurer to have the portion that includes the magnetic strips attached to the bag be magnetic fabric, as taught by Bosechan, to advantageously attract magnets while having the aesthetics of fabric.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheurer and Fox in view of US Publication 2006/0027613 by Chang (Here forth “Chang”).
Regarding claim 11, Scheurer as modified includes all of the limitations including where the magnetic area is located at a collar [Not taught: and a handle] of the bag where the collar and handle are both integrated into the bag. (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 1, Fig 1 of Scheurer, the fastening strip around the collar portion of the modified Scheurer is magnetic).
Limitation D: magnetic handle
Chang discloses a similar golf bag that teaches Limitation D, where a handle of the bag comprises magnets (Fig 3 of Chang, handle 12 contains magnets 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Scheurer and Chang before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the bag of Scheurer to include a magnetic handle, as taught by Chang, to advantageously position and secure handle in a comfortable carrying position.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2019/0232133 by Ferguson (Here forth “Ferguson”) in view of Foreign Publication KR200399240 by Moon Yong-Bong (Here forth “Yong-Bong”).
Regarding claim 12, Ferguson discloses an article comprising:
a golf bag having a main body (Fig 6 of Ferguson, the golf bag has a main body 1);
a [Not taught: magnetic] clip secured to the main body of the golf bag (Fig 1 of Ferguson, clip 12 shown can be clipped to the main body of the golf bag shown in Fig 6 of Ferguson); and
a golf club head cover having an area attractive to a magnetic integrated into the golf glub head whereby the head cover can be releasably secured to the clip secured to the main body of the golf bag (Fig 1 and 6 of Ferguson, the golf club head cover 3 can be releasably secured to the golf bag via clip 12).
Ferguson does not expressly disclose the following Limitations:
Limitation E: the clip is magnetic
Yong-Bong disclose a similar article that teaches Limitation E, wherein the golf club head cover clip is magnetic (Fig 5 of Yong-Bong, magnet 200 is attached to the golf head cover clip making the clip magnetic).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Ferguson and Yong-Bong before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the bag of Ferguson to have the clip be magnetic, as taught by Yong-Bong, to advantageously attach it magnetically to multiple magnetic surfaces including the players when golf club is in use.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/JESSICA KAVINI TAMIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733