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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan (US 2012/0061157) in view of Tse (US 2018/0208226).
With respect to claims 1 and 7, Whelan discloses a powered golf bag assembly (400), comprising: a club bag (401, fig. 15); a bag transport assembly (404, 406; fig. 14) integrated with the club bag (401), wherein the bag transport assembly comprises a foldable rear wheel support brace (462. Figs. 16-17) and a power chassis (440); wherein the foldable rear wheel support brace includes a wheel (460) and the power chassis comprises: a battery (448, paragraph 90); a controller (paragraph 97). (Figs. 1-17, paragraphs 40-97.) Whelan does not disclose a plurality of wheels and a plurality of hub motors in communication with the battery and the controller. Tse teaches of a powered golf bag assembly (abstract), comprising: the foldable rear wheel support brace (22) includes a plurality of wheels (66a, 66b) and a plurality of hub motors (68a, 68b) in communication with the battery (134) and the controller (132); wherein the plurality of hub motors is a pair of hub motors (68a, 68b), and each hub motor operates independent of one another (paragraphs 38-39). (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Tse into the invention of Whelan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily control the cart. (Paragraph 39.)
With respect to claim 2, Whelan, as modified, discloses a pair of wheels (66a, 66b from Tse) that each correspond to one of the hub motors, wherein the wheel can be removed from or installed on a corresponding hub motor but does not explicitly disclose wheels 66a, 66b are removeable. In another aspect of the invention, Tse teaches of wheels 52a, 52b being removable. (Paragraph 42.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Tse into the invention of Whelan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily assembly and disassemble the cart. In addition, regarding certain elements being 'removable', see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."
With respect to claim 4, Tse, as modified, discloses the battery (448, paragraph 90) but does not explicitly state the battery is removeable. (Figs. 1-17, paragraphs 40-97.) Regarding certain elements being 'removable', see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."
With respect to claim 8, Whelan, as modified, discloses the club bag (401) has a top (fig. 15, top of 401) and when the foldable rear wheel support brace (462) is folded against (paragraph 77) the club bag (401), the highest point of the foldable rear wheel support brace (462) is below the top of the club bag (401) (figs. 16-17, the highest point of the rear wheel support braces would be well below the top (Fig. 15 the top of the golf bag 401) of the club bag (401). (Figs. 1-17, paragraphs 40-97.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan and Tse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taylor (WO 2021/140320 A1).
With respect to claim 3, Whelan, as modified, is silent regarding the details of the hub motor to wheel connection. Taylor teaches of each hub motor (125) has splines (fig. 1B) formed thereon around the outer diameter, and each corresponding removeable wheel (fig. 2B) has female spline cups (225) formed therein, to engage the splines (125, fig. 1B) of the corresponding hub motor when the removeable wheel is installed. (Figs. 1-5B, pages 7-10.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Taylor into the invention of Whelan, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enhance their mechanical interaction with the sockets and the transfer of rotational force from the motor to the wheels by reducing the likelihood of slippage. (Page 8, lines 7-10.)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan and Tse, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doane et al. (US 2017/0108860).
With respect to claim 5-6, Whelan, as modified, is silent regarding an antenna. Doane et al. teaches of an antenna (120; paragraphs 13, 119) disposed in the bag transport assembly (112); and a remote (200); wherein the antenna (paragraph 13) and the remote (200) interact with one another to track and control the powered golf bag assembly (paragraphs 43, 56, 119); wherein the antenna is ultra-wide band (paragraph 13, 44, 121, 123). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 115-150.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Doane et al. into the invention of Whelan, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to receive signals from the remote transmitter and then forward that information to the processor unit to process such information to enable the robotic golf caddy to follow the golfer on and off a golf course. (Paragraph 7.)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whelan (US 2012/0061157) in view of Murabe (US 2016/0184676) and Stewart et al. (US 2021/0261181).
With respect to claim 9, Whelan discloses a powered golf bag assembly (abstract), comprising: a club bag (100, 400) having a compartment (fig. 8); a battery (228); a controller (paragraph 97), wherein the battery and the controller are configured to be carried in the compartment of the club bag (100); a foldable handle (234); a foldable rear wheel support brace (462) having a wheel (460), wherein the foldable handle (434) and foldable rear wheel support brace (462) are integrated with the club bag (400) (paragraph 63), and a pair of front wheels (442) having a hub motor (218, 414); and the hub motor (218, 414) in communication with the battery and the controller and the pair of front wheels (442) connected to the club bag. (Figs. 1-17, paragraphs 40-97.) Whelan does not disclose a plurality of wheels and a plurality of hub motors. Murabe teaches of a powered golf bag assembly (abstract), comprising: a pair of front wheels having a hub motor (paragraph 54) for each wheel, wherein each hub motor is in communication with the battery and the controller and the pair of front wheels connect to the club bag (paragraph 54). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 27-54.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Murabe into the invention of Whelan with a reasonable expectation of success in order to appropriately drive each wheel. (Paragraph 54.) Whelan, as modified, is silent regarding the foldable rear wheel support brace (1-4) includes a plurality of wheels (5). Stewart et al. teaches of the foldable rear wheel support brace (21) includes a plurality of wheels (22). (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 44-77.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Stewart et al. into the invention of Whelan, as with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily stabilize and fold the cart. (Paragraph 50, 52.)
With respect to claim 10, Whelan, as modified, discloses the pair of front wheels are removeable from the club bag (paragraph 58). (Figs. 1-17, paragraphs 40-97.) Regarding certain elements being 'removable', see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."
Claims 11-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse (US 2018/0208226) in view of Gong et al. (CN 110733356 A; Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’).
With respect to claim 11, Tse discloses a powered golf bag assembly (abstract), comprising: a bag transport assembly (22) configured to connect to the club bag, wherein the bag transport assembly comprises a foldable rear wheel support brace (22) and a power chassis (60) (paragraphs 40-41); wherein the foldable rear wheel support brace includes a plurality of wheels (66a, 66b) and the power chassis (60) has a top portion that has a defined width, and wherein the power chassis comprises: a battery (134); a controller (132); a shell (housing of 72); and a pair of hub motors (68a, 68b) in communication with the battery (134) and the controller (132) and mounted external to the shell (72); wherein, when mounted external to the shell, each hub motor (68a, 68b) has an outer edge and the width defined from outer edge of the first hub motor to the outer edge of the second hub motor is less than the width of the base of the club bag. (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.) Tse does not disclose the shape of the golf bag. Gong et al. teaches of a club bag (fig. 9) having a base with a defined width (Modified fig. 9, below); the power chassis (1) has a top portion (portion of 1 across the middle and that extends in a width direction over motors 4, seen in figs. 2, 9) that has a defined width that is approximately the same width as the base of the club bag (the base of the golf bag with the upper arrow is approximately the same width as the top portion of the power chassis); wherein, when mounted external to the shell, each hub motor (figs. 2. 9) has an outer edge and the width defined from outer edge of the first hub motor to the outer edge of the second hub motor (the entire circumference of the motor is seen in figs. 2, 9, which shows the motor does not extend into the tire area, see modified fig. 9, below) is less than the width of the base of the club bag (fig. 9 shows the base of the golf bag with the upper arrow is at least equivalent to the outer edge of the tire). (Figs. 1-9, MTD paragraphs 43-92.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Gong et al. into the invention of Tse with a reasonable expectation of success in order to solve the problems of large size and poor maneuverability of golf bag carts. (MTD paragraph 7.) In addition, it is known that optimization of size, shape, and scale through routine experimentation is an ordinary skill in the art and It is well known in the art that routine experimentation and various design engineering choices could have been used to have arrived at modifying the dimensions of the club bag and the bag transport assembly. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dimensions of the club bag and the bag transport assembly to better provide support to the club bag, as desired or necessary to meet the requirements of a particular implementation.
[AltContent: textbox (Base; width used for claim is based on width of upper part of base)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Area within tire that motors do not extend)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
446
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Tse, as modified, discloses a width of the base of the golf bag (fig. 9) but does not give a specific dimension. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the defined width of the base of the club bag is approximately 267.7 millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 13, Tse, as modified, discloses the plurality of wheels (66a, 66b) of the foldable rear wheel support brace (22) is a pair of wheels and each wheel of the foldable rear wheel support brace (22) has an outer edge (fig. 1) and has a width defined from the outer edge of the first wheel (66a) of the foldable rear wheel support brace (22) to the outer edge of the second wheel (66b) of the foldable rear wheel support brace. (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.) Tse does not disclose the width is approximately 462 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the width defined from the outer edge of the first wheel of the foldable rear wheel support brace to the outer edge of the second wheel of the foldable rear wheel support brace is approximately 462 millimeters, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 14, Tse, as modified, discloses a pair of wheels (66a, 66b) that each correspond to one of the hub motors, wherein the wheel can be removed from or installed on a corresponding hub motor. (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.) Tse, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wheels 66a, 66b are removeable. In another aspect of the invention, Tse teaches of wheels 52a, 52b being removable. (Paragraph 42.) In addition, regarding certain elements being 'removable', see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."
With respect to claim 15, Tse, as modified, discloses each removeable wheel (66a, 66b) has an outer edge and the width defined from outer edge of the first removeable wheel (66a) to the outer edge of the second removeable wheel (66b). (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.) Tse does not disclose the width is approximately 585.5 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have each removeable wheel has an outer edge and the width defined from outer edge of the first removeable wheel to the outer edge of the second removeable wheel is approximately 585.5 millimeter, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 16, Tse, as modified, discloses the club bag has a centerline (a golf bag installed in Tse would have a slanted centerline going from 42 to 44 going in a forward direction and past the axis of removable wheels 66a,66b), and the pair of removeable wheels (66a, 66b) define a central axis between them (fig. 1), and wherein the club bag centerline extends forward (fig. 1) of the central axis of the removeable wheels (66a, 66b). (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.)
With respect to claim 18, Tse, as modified, discloses the shell (housing of 72) has a forwardmost point and wherein, when the club bag is in an inclined position (a golf bag installed in Tse would have a slanted centerline going from 42 to 44 going in a forward direction), no portion of the club bag extends in front of the forwardmost point of the shell (housing of 72). (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.)
With respect to claim 19, Tse, as modified, discloses the battery (134) is removeable (fig. 8 shows the batteries removeable). (Figs. 1-11, paragraphs 30-43.) Regarding certain elements being 'removable', see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art's] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose."
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse and Gong et al., as applied to claims 11 and 14 above, and further in view of Taylor (WO 2021/140320 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Tse, as modified, is silent regarding the details of the hub motor to wheel connection. Taylor teaches of each hub motor (125) has splines (fig. 1B) formed thereon around the outer diameter, and each corresponding removeable wheel (fig. 2B) has female spline cups (225) formed therein, to engage the splines (125, fig. 1B) of the corresponding hub motor when the removeable wheel is installed. (Figs. 1-5B, pages 7-10.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Taylor into the invention of Tse, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enhance their mechanical interaction with the sockets and the transfer of rotational force from the motor to the wheels by reducing the likelihood of slippage. (Page 8, lines 7-10.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tse and Gong et al., as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Doane et al. (US 2017/0108860).
With respect to claim 20, Tse, as modified, is silent regarding an antenna. Doane et al. teaches of an antenna (120; paragraphs 13, 119) disposed in the bag transport assembly (112); and a remote (200); wherein the antenna (paragraph 13) and the remote (200) interact with one another to track and control the powered golf bag assembly (paragraphs 43, 56, 119). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 115-150.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Doane et al. into the invention of Tse, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to receive signals from the remote transmitter and then forward that information to the processor unit to process such information to enable the robotic golf caddy to follow the golfer on and off a golf course. (Paragraph 7.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liao (US 2012/0118657) discloses a similar rear wheel support brace and wheel with separate motors associated with them (figs. 3, 8). The references cited on the PTO-892 form disclose similar features of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on 571-270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights