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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun (KR 102227179 B1). Regarding claim 1, Chun discloses a golf tee construction comprising a ball support (210), a shaft (100) and an extension member (200) coupling the ball support to the shaft. Note Figure 1 and the Abstract teaching an arrangement of the tee such that the ball support goes up and down to define an adjustable height.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Chun teaches that the ball support (210) and the extension member (200) are capable of going up and down. Thus, Chun teaches that the ball support is configurable and extendable and retractable to configure the size of the ball support.
Regarding claim 4, note Figure 1 showing markings (230) along an elongated portion of the ball support.
Regarding claim 5, note Figure 2 showing a plurality of slots (220) located at different lengths along the extension member (200). Further, note Figure 9 showing a groove (410) in the extension member.
Regarding claim 9, note Figure 2 showing the extension member (200) with a plurality of notches located along its length.
Regarding claim 10, note Figure 2 showing a protruding member (310) for the shaft (100) that engages the notches along the length of the extension member. Note Figure 3 showing the protruding member configured to lock in a notch and set the shaft in a position along the extension member to set the length of the golf tee.
Regarding claim 11, Chun teaches that the protruding member is retractable from the notch to unlock the golf tee. Note page 3, line 35 through page 4, line 10 of the translation of Chun.
Regarding claim 16, note the rejections of claims 1 and 10 as these claims recite substantially similar limitations.
Regarding claims 17-20, note the rejections of claims 2-4 and 11, respectively as these claims recite substantially similar limitations.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klein (DE 102016120092 A1). Regarding claim 1, Klein discloses a golf tee construction comprising a ball support (14), a shaft (3, 6) and an extension member (13) coupling the ball support to the shaft. Note Figure 1 and page 3, lines 12-19 teaching an arrangement of the tee such that the tee height may be adjusted.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Klein teaches that the ball support (14) and the extension member (13) are adjustable to set the tee height. Thus, Klein teaches that the ball support is configurable and extendable and retractable to configure the size of the ball support.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (KR 102227179 B1) in view of KR 20230000459 U. Regarding claim 8, Chun teaches a plurality of markings along an elongated portion of the ball support but lacks the teaching for each of the notches to correspond to each of the measurement markings. KR ‘459 reveals that it is known in the art of golf tees comprising measurement markings to provide a measurement marking for each notch (13) along the length of the shaft (120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the measurement marking such that they correspond to each of the notches in the golf tee of Chun in order to indicate the particular tee height for each of the notches.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (DE 102016120092 A1) in view of Chun (KR 102227179 B1). Regarding claim 4, Klein lacks the teaching for a plurality of markings located along an elongated portion (5) of the ball support. Chun reveals that it is known in the art of golf tees to provide a plurality of measurement markings along the length of an adjustable height golf tee in order to indicate the tee height. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the elongated portion (5) of the ball support of Klein with measurement markings thereon in order to indicate the tee height.
Claims 5-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (DE 102016120092 A1) in view of Liao (US 2014/0057740). Regarding claims 5 and 6, note Figure 1 of Klein showing a plurality of slots (18) located at different lengths along the shaft (6) and a groove (17). Further, Klein provides a protruding member that is configured to slide along the groove and set within one of the slots to set the length of the golf tee. However, Klein locates the slots and groove on the shaft (6) instead of the extension member and the protruding member on the extension member (13) instead of the shaft as claimed. Liao reveals that it is known in the art of adjustable height golf tees to adjust the teed height by providing a groove (152) and a plurality of slots (154) on the inner extension member (130) and the outer shaft member (140) with the protruding member (142). Given this teaching of an opposite arrangement for the grooves and slots and protruding member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the golf tee of Klein where the extension member comprises the groove and slots and the shaft comprises the protruding member in order to provide an alternative arrangement that is equally capable of setting the tee height. This modification is an obvious reversal/rearrangement of parts. Note MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 7, the slots (18) of Klein define a notch formed in the surface that the protruding member (16) sits in. Note Figure 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Klein in view of Liao teaches a plurality of notches that are located along the length of the extension member (13).
Regarding claim 10, Klein teaches the protruding member (16) that corresponds to each of the plurality of notches (18) and is configured to lock in a notch to set the tee at a particular length. Further, the combination of Klein in view of Liao teaches the protruding member located on the shaft (6) and the plurality of notches along the length of the extension member (13). Note the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, the protruding member is retractable from the notch (18) into the groove (17) to release the protruding member from the notch where it is locked.
Regarding claim 12, note the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6 as these claims recite substantially similar limitations.
Regarding claim 13-15, note the rejections of claims 2-4 as these claims recite substantially similar limitations.
Regarding claim 16, note the rejections of claims 1 and 10 as these claims recite similar limitations.
Regarding claims 17-20, note the rejections of claims 2-4 and 11, respectively as these claims recite similar limitations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (DE 102016120092 A1) in view of Liao (US 2014/0057740) and KR 20230000459 U. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Klein in view of Liao lacks the teaching for the plurality of markings that correspond to the plurality of slots. KR ‘459 reveals that it is known in the art of golf tees comprising measurement markings to provide a measurement marking for each notch (13) along the length of the shaft (120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the notches of Klein with measurement markings in order to indicate the particular tee height for each of the notches.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN B WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/STEVEN B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711