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 2/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-18 remain pending in the application. New claim 18 has been added to the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-18, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection. Note discussions of US Publication 2006/0201596 by Hwang, US Publication 2006/0060484 by 2020/0188752 by Gonzalez, and Korean Publication KR200471020 by Bong-sik, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the additional features" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The additional features claimed are different from the additional feature that mentions a cleaning feature that is a part of the first and second bodies.
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, 3-4, 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by US Publication 2006/0054258 by Lamparello (Here forth “Lamparello”) in view of US Publication 2020/0188752 by Gonzalez (Here forth “Gonzalez”).
Regarding claim 1, Lamparello discloses a cover [Not taught: in a shape of an animal] for sports equipment (Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Lamparello and Para 21 of Lamparello, the cover is for a golf club and ball), comprising:
a first body portion (Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Lamparello), [Not taught: in a shape of a body of the animal], having a first cavity with a first opening, the first cavity being shaped to receive a head of the sports equipment (Fig 1 and Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Lamparello, the golf club head fits within a first cavity);
a second body portion (Fig A- Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Lamparello), [Not taught: in a shape of a head of the animal including a portion in a shape of a mouth], attached to the first body portion (Fig A-B of Lamparello, the second body can be seen attached to the first body portion), the second body portion including a [Not taught: second cavity in the mouth] with a second opening, the second cavity configured for receiving a ball (Fig B- Examiner Annotated Fig 4 of Lamparello; Para 21 of Lamparello, the second cavity 408 can hold a golf ball);
a closure mechanism on the second body portion (Fig 5 of Lamparello shows a closure mechanism 500 in the opening of the second body portion); and
an additional feature for cleaning the sports equipment or the ball, the additional feature being a part of the first body portion or the second body portion comprised of a material, different from another material of the first body portion or the second body portion, configured for cleaning (Para 19 of Lamparello the outer material of the can be a micro-fiber suede that can be configured for cleaning and can be located on the outer portion of the first and second body portions and a different material can be used such as polyester can be used on the inner layers of the first and second body portions; Additionally there are a variety of materials that can be used as mentioned in the para 19 for either the first and second body portions),
wherein the second opening is configured to selectively open to remove the ball and close with the closure mechanism to retain the ball in the second cavity (Para 22 of Lamparello).
PNG
media_image1.png
379
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
297
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig A-Examiner Annotated Fig 3 of Lamparello Fig B- Examiner Annotated Fig 4 of Lamparello
Lamparello does not expressly disclose a that the head cover is shaped like that of an animal.
Gonzalez discloses a similar a cover in a shape of an animal; a first body portion, in a shape of a body of the animal; the second body portion including a second cavity in the mouth with a second opening (Fig 2 and 5 of Gonzalez, the cover is in the shape of an animal such as a pig with ears and the first body portion is the neck/body portion of the animal and the second body portion is the head portion of the animal and when modifying the head cover of Lamparello, can have the second cavity located in the mouth area of the animal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover taught by Lamparello by providing the shape as that of animal rather than that of Lamparello. Such a modification involves only a change in shape which provides no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed shape.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the second cavity opening be at the mouth of the animal design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Lamparello further discloses wherein the closure mechanism selectively closes the second opening of the second cavity with fasteners (Fig 5 of Lamparello closure mechanism 500 is a fastener that closes the second cavity; Para 4 of Lamparello, the second opening of the second cavity has zipper fasteners).
Regarding claim 4, Lamparello discloses wherein the sports equipment is a golf club and the ball is a golf ball (Abstract and Para 21 of Lamparello, the equipment can be a golf club and ball).
Regarding claim 7, Lamparello as modified includes all of the limitations including wherein the additional feature include one or more ears (See the detailed description of Claim 1; Fig 5 of Gonzalez teaches ears and Lamparello teaches the second body portion comprising a sponge material) on the second body portion comprised of a sponge material (A sponge material is defined as a porous material that is soft and absorbent and capable of soaking up liquid; Para 19 of Lamparello, the outer layer of the head cover can be made of microfiber which is a sponge material).
Regarding claim 10, Lamparello further discloses wherein the sports equipment is a lacrosse stick or a hockey stick (Para 20 of Lamparello, the cover is capable of fitting over a portion of a hockey depending on the thickness and size of the stick as the first body is made of an elastic material and capable of stretching; Para 4 of Lamparello, it is well known in prior art to have head covers for various sports equipment).
Regarding claim 11, Lamparello further discloses wherein the sports equipment is a bat or a racquet (Para 20 of Lamparello, the cover is capable of fitting over a portion of a bat depending on the thickness and size of the bat as the first body is made of an elastic material and capable of stretching; Para 4 of Lamparello, it is well known in prior art to have head covers for various sports equipment).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Lamparello and Gonzalez in view of US Publication 2006/0201596 by Hwang (Here forth “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 5, Lamparello does not expressly disclose wherein the additional features is a cloth secured in and extendable out from the second cavity.
Hwang disclose a similar cover that teaches wherein the additional features is a cloth secured in and extendable out from the second cavity (Para 27 of Hwang, a cloth is capable of being secured in and extend out from the second cavity 25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lamparello as modified and Hwang before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the head cover of the modified Lamparello to have a cloth secured and extendable from the second cavity, as taught by Hwang, to advantageously be able to clean golf equipment and store the cloth.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparello and Gonzalez in view of US Publication 2004/0206433 by Kim (Here forth “Kim”) .
Regarding claim 8, Lamparello does not expressly disclose that the additional feature includes a bill made of rubberized material
Kim discloses a similar head cover that teaches wherein the additional feature includes a bill on the second body portion comprised of a rubberized material configured for scrubbing (Para 19, a portion of the animal features can be made of a rubberized material that is capable of being used for scrubbing as rubberized materials provide a good amount of friction).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lamparello as modified and Kim before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the head cover of Lamparello as modified to have the headcover include portions of the animal features such as the nose/mouth/bill area to be made of a rubberized material, as taught by Kim, to advantageously provide authentic looking animal features.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparello and Gonzalez in view of US Patent 5050655 issued to Borenstein (Here forth “Borenstein”) and US Patent 5615720 issued to O’Sullivan (Here forth “Sullivan”) .
Regarding claim 9, Lamparello does not expressly disclose that the additional feature includes hair that behaves as a cleaning bristle brush.
Borenstein discloses a similar head cover that teaches wherein the additional feature includes hair comprised of a wire material [Not taught: on the second body portion] configured for cleaning (Fig 6 of Borenstein, cleaning bristle brush 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lamparello as modified and Borenstein before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the head cover of Lamparello as modified to include a bristle brush cleaning material to a portion of the second body, as taught by Borenstein, to advantageously clean the golf club.
Borenstein as modified does not expressly disclose that the cleaning bristle brush is make of wire.
Sullivan discloses a similar head cover that teaches wherein the brush material is wire (Column 3 lines 9-11 of Sullivan, the bristles can be brass wires).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lamparello as modified and Sullivan before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the head cover of Lamparello as modified to have the bristle brush be made brass wire, as taught by Sullivan, to advantageously clean metal.
Lamparello as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the bristle brush expressly being located on the second body portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the bristle brush be located on the second body portion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparello and Gonzalez in view of US Publication 2005/0016648 by Vakharia (Here forth “Vakharia”) .
Regarding claim 12, Lamparello does not expressly disclose that first opening includes a flap with a magnetic closure.
Vakharia discloses a similar head cover that teaches Limitation E, wherein the further comprising another closure mechanism which closes the first opening and includes a flap with a magnetic closure (Para 23 and Fig 6 of Vakharia, flap 76 has a magnetic closure 74 and 80).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the modified Lamparello and Vakharia before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the head cover of the modified Lamparello to include a flap and magnetic closure that secures and covers a portion of the first opening, as taught by Vakharia, to advantageously secure the cover onto the golf club head.
Claim 13-17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparello in view of Gonzalez and Vakharia .
Regarding claim 13, Lamparello discloses a golf club cover [Not taught: in a shape of animal], comprising:
a first body portion, [Not taught: in a shape of a body of the animal], having a first cavity with a first opening (Fig 1 and Fig A of Lamparello, the gold club head cover includes a first body portion with first cavity and first opening), the first cavity being shaped to receive a head of the golf club (Fig 1 and Lamparello, first cavity is shaped to receive golf club head);
[Not taught: a first closure mechanism on the first opening];
a second body portion,[Not taught: in a shape of a head of the animal including a portion in a shape of a mouth, having a second cavity in the mouth] with a second opening, the second cavity being shaped to receive a golf ball (Fig B and Para 21 of Lamparello, the second body portion includes second cavity that can retain a ball); and
an additional feature for cleaning the golf club or the golf ball, the additional feature including a part of the first body portion or the second body portion comprised of a material different from another material of the first body portion or the second body portion, configured for cleaning (Para 19 of Lamparello the outer material of the can be a micro-fiber suede that can be configured for cleaning and can be located on the outer portion of the first and second body portions and a different material can be used such as polyester can be used on the inner layers of the first and second body portions; Additionally there are a variety of materials that can be used as mentioned in the para 19 for either the first and second body portions);
wherein the second opening is configured to selectively open to remove the golf ball and close with a second closure mechanism to retain the golf ball in the second cavity (Fig 5 of Lamparello, the second closure mechanism 500 contains zipper fasteners).
Lamparello does not expressly disclose a that the head cover is shaped like that of an animal.
Gonzalez discloses a similar a cover in a shape of an animal; a first body portion, in a shape of a body of the animal; the second body portion including a second cavity in the mouth with a second opening (Fig 2 and 5 of Gonzalez, the cover is in the shape of an animal such as a pig with ears and the first body portion is the neck/body portion of the animal and the second body portion is the head portion of the animal and when modifying the head cover of Lamparello, can have the second cavity located in the mouth area of the animal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover taught by Lamparello by providing the shape as that of animal rather than that of Lamparello. Such a modification involves only a change in shape which provides no change in function (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Further Applicant has not disclosed criticality for the claimed shape.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the application was filed to have the second cavity opening be at the mouth of the animal design , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Lamparello does not expressly disclose a closure mechanism on the first opening
Vakharia discloses a similar head cover that teaches, wherein a first closure mechanism on the first opening (Para 23 and Fig 6 of Vakharia, flap 76 has a magnetic closure 74 and 80 at the first opening).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lamparello as modified and Vakharia before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the head cover of the modified Lamparello to include a flap and first magnetic closure at the first opening, as taught by Vakharia, to advantageously secure the cover onto the golf club head.
Regarding claim 14, Lamparello as modified includes all of the Limitations including wherein the first closure mechanism includes a magnetic closure (See the detailed description of the rejection of claim 13; Para 23 and Fig 6 of Vakharia, flap 76 has a magnetic closure 74 and 80 at the first opening).
Regarding claim 15, Lamparello further discloses wherein the second cavity includes a closure mechanism comprises fasteners (Fig 5 of Lamparello, the closure mechanism 500 contains zipper fasteners).
Regarding claim 16, Lamparello further discloses wherein the golf club is a putter (Para 20 of Lamparello, the cover is capable of fitting over a putter depending on the thickness and size of the golf stick as the first body is made of an elastic material and capable of stretching).
Regarding claim 17, Lamparello discloses wherein the golf club is a driver or an iron (Para 20 of Lamparello, the cover is capable of fitting over a driver depending on the thickness and size of the golf stick as the first body is made of an elastic material and capable of stretching).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamparello, Gonzalez and Vakharia in view of Korean Publication KR200471020 by Bong-sik (Here forth “Bong-sik”) .
Regarding claim 18, Lamparello as modified does not expressly disclose wherein the first body portion in the shape of the body of the animal includes a plurality of legs.
Bong-sik discloses wherein the first body portion in the shape of the body of the animal includes a plurality of legs (Fig 1 of Bong-sik, legs 40 is located on the first body portion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Lamparello as modified and Bong-sik before them, when the application was filed, to have modified the head cover of the modified Lamparello to include legs, as taught by Bong-sik, to advantageously make the cover aesthetically pleasing.
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
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733
17 April 2026
Prosecution Insights