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 Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1-12, the language “Novel Connecting Golf Tee” should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manson (US 2009/0118041). Regarding claim 1, Manson discloses a golf tee construction comprising an upper head (30) connected to a middle shaft portion (20) which terminates into a lower pointed portion (24). Note Figure 1. Further, note Figures 1A and 1E showing the upper end head portion with a space (34). The space is shown as being larger than the diameter of the shaft and thus, the space is capable of accommodating the middle shaft portion of another tee. Note Figure 1C. It is noted that the recitation for the space to accommodate a middle shaft portion of another golf tee relates to the intended use of the novel connecting golf tee. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the space as taught by Manson is capable of accommodating a middle shaft portion of another of Munson’s golf tee and thus, meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, note the examiner’s notations on Figure 1C identifying the top surface for the upper end head portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, note the examiner’s notations on Figure 1C above identifying the plurality of arms (32) extending from the top surface.
Regarding claim 4, note the examiner’s notations on Figure 1C above identifying the top surface. As shown in Figure 1C, the top surface provides a generally concave curvature.
Regarding claim 5, as shown in Figure 1C the arms define spaces therebetween.
Regarding claim 6, note Figure 1C showing an interior border of the arms that connects with the border of the center portion of the top surface.
Regarding claim 7, the concave surface as defined by the top surface and the arms corresponds to the convex surface of the middle shaft portion diameter.
Regarding claim 12, note Figures 1A and 1B of Munson showing the opposing inward facing retaining ridges (38) disposed on the perimeter of the upper end head portion (30).
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 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munson (US 2009/0118041). Regarding claim 8, note Figure 1C showing the spacing between the arms greater than that of the diameter of the shaft. Thus, Manson teaches that the arms are able to accommodate the middle shaft portion of a second golf tee as defined by claim 1. Regarding the limitation for first and second golf tees, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of golf tees of Manson for a user in order to permit replacement should a tee be broken. It is noted that this modification is an obvious duplication of parts. Note MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding the limitation for the golf tee to connect to the second golf tee by snapping the middle shaft portion into the spacing, this limitation relates to the intended use of the golf tees. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the golf tee of Manson is capable of snapping a second golf tee into the spacing between the arms and thus, renders obvious the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 9, note the rejection of claim 8 as these claims recite similar limitations.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the limitation for the golf tee to accommodate the second golf tee by sliding the middle shaft portion into the spacing, this limitation relates to the intended use of the golf tees. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, the golf tee of Manson is capable of sliding a second golf tee into the spacing between the arms and thus, renders obvious the claim limitation.
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