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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The subject matter of a claim must be directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If it is not, the claim is not eligible for patent protection. The subject matter which courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention is limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (i.e., the judicial exceptions) (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013))). There are two criteria for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and both must be satisfied. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. The recitation in claim 16 of “a golf putting improvement device receiving a first putted golf ball on a sloped surface of the device; the device, based on the first ball having received a first strike of a first force, allowing the first ball to reach and overcome a top edge of the sloped surface and thereafter reach a flat surface attached to the sloped surface; the device receiving a second putted golf ball on a sloped surface of the device, and; the device, based on the second ball having received a second strike of a second force, allowing the second ball to roll back down and off the sloped surface and roll away from the device” (and the limitations of dependent claims 17-20) are directed to methods of organizing human activity and rules governing a game/activity. Methods of managing a game/activity are abstract ideas (See: Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and a set of rules for a game are drawn to abstract ideas (See: In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Based on the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes, claims 16-20 are not eligible for patent protection because:
(Step 1) claims 16-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(Step 2A) claims 16-20 are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (a judicially recognized exception) based on the recited limitations of claims 16-20. The recited limitations fall within the subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and are directed to methods of organizing human activity (following instructions/rules governing an activity/game). If a claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea), the claim is evaluated as to whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a golf putting improvement device having: a sloped surface, a flat surface, and sidewalls. The recited judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
(Step 2B) claims 16-20 do not recite provide an inventive concept because the additional elements (a golf putting improvement device having: a sloped surface, a flat surface, and sidewalls) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See: Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965-66 (2012)). The examiner takes official notice that the additional elements (a golf putting improvement device having: a sloped surface, a flat surface, and sidewalls) are well-understood, routine, and conventional and are widely prevalent and in common use in the relevant field (See for example: Romeo (7255648), Ridge (5573247), Kurtz (1687217), Maranian (8864596), Maruszczak (20040005933), Corcoran (6623371), Hsu (20020107080)), comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 7-8, 10, and 14-20 are 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.
The term “approximately” in claims 2 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “about” in claims 2, 15, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the vertical back surface” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the lower back ledge” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “generally” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the two lower back ledges” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the user” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear what the method steps are in the claims. The limitations of claim 16 are not active method steps because claim 16 merely recites “receiving” putted balls and “allowing” the balls to roll back down a sloped surface. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret claims 16-20 to be directed to a user striking a ball at the claimed “putting improvement device”.
The recitation in claim 18 of “wherein putted balls that enter the sloped surface in a center section of width about 2.5 inches within an overall 4.25-inch width of the sloped surface would sink in a golf course environment” is indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by the limitation “would sink in a golf course environment”. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim recitation of “would sink in a golf course environment” to be directed to striking the ball and based on the strike determining a behavior of the ball.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the user” in lines 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romeo (7255648).
Regarding claim 16, Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a method for supporting growth in golfing skills, comprising: a golf putting improvement device receiving a first putted golf ball on a sloped surface (4) of the device (Col. 3, Lines 14-45); the device, based on the first ball having received a first strike of a first force, allowing the first ball to reach and overcome a top edge of the sloped surface and thereafter reach a flat surface (5) attached to the sloped surface (Col. 3, Lines 14-45); the device receiving a second putted golf ball on a sloped surface (4) of the device, and; the device, based on the second ball having received a second strike of a second force, allowing the second ball to roll back down and off the sloped surface (4) and roll away from the device (Col. 4, Lines 24-30).
Regarding claim 17, Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the first force exceeds the second force when the first and second balls are putted from a same location (Col. 3, Lines 14-45) (Col. 4, Lines 24-30).
Regarding claim 19, Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the device providing a vertical sidewall (10) on each side of the sloped surface (4), the vertical sidewalls providing boundaries indicating an unsuccessful putt when hit (Col. 3, Lines 41-45).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo (7255648) in view of Ridge (5573247).
Regarding claim 1, Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a system for supporting improvement in golf putting, comprising: a raised flat surface (Fig. 1, Part No. 5); a hole (6) in the flat surface; vertical panels (10) at left and right sides of the flat surface and extending forward of the flat surface; a ramp (4) with an upper edge approaching and attached to a front edge of the raised flat surface and bounded by the panels (See fig. 1) that: receives initial contact with an oncoming putted and rolling golf ball (11) at a lower edge of the ramp (Col. 3, Lines 14-45).
It is noted that the prior art of Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the ball putted from a surface area approaching the lower edge, after the received initial contact, allows the ball to naturally roll upward toward the upper edge, in a first event, when the rolling ball has a first quantity of momentum, allows the ball to roll past the upper edge and onto the raised flat surface and come to rest in the indentation in some cases, in a second event, when the rolling ball has a second quantity of momentum, allows the ball to discontinue rolling prior to reaching the upper edge and further allows the ball to roll back down the ramp to the ground surface area, and in a third event, when the rolling ball has a third quantity of momentum, allows the ball to roll past the upper edge and past the raised flat surface” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Romeo does not teach an indentation in the flat surface.
Ridge (Figures 1-9) teaches an indentation (Fig. 1, Part No. 22) in the flat surface (Col. 1, Lines 51-61).
It is noted that the combination of the prior art of Romeo and Ridge is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the ball putted from a surface area approaching the lower edge, after the received initial contact, allows the ball to naturally roll upward toward the upper edge, in a first event, when the rolling ball has a first quantity of momentum, allows the ball to roll past the upper edge and onto the raised flat surface and come to rest in the indentation in some cases, in a second event, when the rolling ball has a second quantity of momentum, allows the ball to discontinue rolling prior to reaching the upper edge and further allows the ball to roll back down the ramp to the ground surface area, and in a third event, when the rolling ball has a third quantity of momentum, allows the ball to roll past the upper edge and past the raised flat surface” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Romeo with an indentation in the flat surface as taught by Ridge as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a putting device/target having a hole in a flat surface) for another (a putting device/target having an indentation in a flat surface) to obtain predictable results (a putting device having a target in a flat surface that users aim for to practice a golf shot) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) ) (Ridge: Col. 1, Lines 53-57).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the ramp is approximately 4.25 inches wide, about a width of a golf hole on a golf course (Col. 4, Lines 43-47).
As an alternative rejection, it is noted that the modified Romeo teaches a ramp that inherently has a width (See Romeo: Col. 4, Lines 43-47). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (See: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Romeo with the ramp is approximately 4.25 inches wide as a means of finding optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the panels (10) are of height higher than the ramp (4) (See fig. 1).
It is noted that the modified Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the panels… are directed to blocking errantly struck golf balls” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a ramp (4) having left and right sides (See fig. 1).
It is noted that the modified Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “in-boundary points are situated approximately 0.875 inches each from the right and left sides of the ramp at the lower edge, leaving approximately a 2.5 inch space between them, a space through which if the upright golf ball center of entering putts enters are deemed to represent successful putts unless struck excessively hard” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the system additionally comprises a vertical back surface (See fig. 1) that supports the system along with the vertical panels (10).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the system additionally comprises a lower back ledge (8) within the vertical back surface.
It is noted that the modified Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “that stops a putt struck with too much force, a putt touching the lower back ledge in its travel deemed still to represent a successful putt, a putt flying beyond without touching the lower back ledge in its travel deemed to represent an unsuccessful putt struck due to carrying too much force” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the system is rotatable (See fig. 1).
It is noted that the prior art of Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “to represent an angle of entry that a putted ball would be required to be travelling on to enter the center of the hole on a sloped or non-flat putting surface” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Romeo (Figures 1-) teaches a system for supporting improvement in golf putting, (Col. 3, Lines 14-45).
The modified Romeo does not teach two of the systems are placed back-to-back to produce a multi-putt scenario where one or more users participate using two generally opposing putt lines to practice, compete, or participate in enjoyable drills and games, and the two lower back ledges of each system amalgamate to form a functional ball-collection trough.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “two of the systems” is directed to mere duplication of parts (i.e. providing two of the claimed systems). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Romeo with two of the systems as a means of mere duplication of parts (See: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
It is noted that the modified Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “placed back-to-back to produce a multi-putt scenario where one or more users participate using two generally opposing putt lines to practice, compete, or participate in enjoyable drills and games, and the two lower back ledges of each system amalgamate to form a functional ball-collection trough” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a system for building golf putting skills, comprising: a flat surface (Fig. 1, Part No. 5) suspended above one of a floor level and a ground level; an hole (6) in a center area of the flat surface; a ramp (4) leading upward and at an angle from the one of the floor level and the ground level to the flat surface that: receives golf balls (11) putted from points located on one of the floor and the ground associated with the one of the floor level and the ground level, respectively.
Romeo does not teach an indentation in a center area of the flat surface.
Ridge (Figures 1-9) teaches an indentation (Fig. 1, Part No. 22) in a center area of the flat surface (Col. 1, Lines 51-61).
It is noted that the combination of Romeo and Ridge is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “in a first event when a first golf ball is putted with a first force, provides a first means for the first ball to roll back down and to return to the one of floor and ground, in a second event when a second golf ball is putted with a second force, provides a second means for the second golf ball to roll to a top of the ramp and to the flat surface and settle in the indentation in some cases” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Romeo with an indentation in a center area of the flat surface as taught by Ridge as a means of simple substitution of one known element (a putting device/target having a hole in a flat surface) for another (a putting device/target having an indentation in a flat surface) to obtain predictable results (a putting device having a target in a flat surface that users aim for to practice a golf shot) (See: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) ) (Ridge: Col. 1, Lines 53-57).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches the system further comprises vertical side panels (10) and a rear panel (9) supporting the flat surface and the ramp (See fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a system for building golf putting skills, comprising: a flat surface (Fig. 1, Part No. 5) suspended above one of a floor level and a ground level.
It is noted that the modified Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the second force exceeds the first force when the golf balls are putted from a same location on the one of floor and ground” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a system for building golf putting skills, comprising: a flat surface (Fig. 1, Part No. 5) suspended above one of a floor level and a ground level.
It is noted that the modified Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “the system is turned so as not to directly face the user to reduce access of the putted ball and to simulate a sloped putting surface” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a system for building golf putting skills, comprising: a ramp (4) having left and right sides.
It is noted that the modified Romeo is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “in-boundary points are situated about 0.875 inches each from the right and left sides of the ramp at a lower edge, leaving about 2.50 inches of space between the in-boundary points, space into which entering putts are assured to represent successful putts unless struck excessively hard” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo in view of Ridge, further in view of Ross (20140364244).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a system comprising: vertical panels (10) at left and right sides of the flat surface.
The modified Romeo does not teach the system has holes in the vertical panels to facilitate fastening the system to a ground surface.
Ross (Figures 1-11) teaches the system has holes (Fig. 6-7, Part No. 605) (Para. 0022) in the vertical panels (Fig. 10, Part No. 405) (Para. 0022).
It is noted that the combination of the prior art of Romeo and Ross is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “to facilitate fastening the system to a ground surface” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Romeo with the system has holes in the vertical panels as taught by Ross as a means of providing vertical supports of a golf game device with holes sized to receive a support member of the golf game (Ross: Para. 0022).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo in view of Ridge, further in view of Mitchell (3312474).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Romeo (Figure 1) teaches a system comprising: a ramp (4) (See fig. 1).
The modified Romeo does not teach the ramp has a first notch at its central lower ramp entry and the lower back ledge has a second notch at its back ledge center such that both notches are used to align with a straight line on a putting surface or to construct a string line with supports over the putting surface to facilitate practice of repeatedly aligning to and hitting straight putts.
Mitchell (Figures 1-4) teaches the system has a first notch (Fig. 1 and 4, Part No. 1) at a central portion and the lower back ledge has a second notch (Fig. 1 and 4, Part No. 3) at its back ledge center (Col. 2, Lines 12-18).
It is noted that the combination of Romeo and Mitchell is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “such that both notches are used to align with a straight line on a putting surface or to construct a string line with supports over the putting surface to facilitate practice of repeatedly aligning to and hitting straight putts” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Romeo with the lower back ledge has a second notch at its back ledge center as taught by Mitchell as a means of providing a golf training device with notches that define a straight line path to guide/direct back and forward strokes of a putter along a straight line (Mitchell: Col. 2, Lines 12-18).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romeo.
Regarding claim 18, Romeo (Figure 1) teaches putting balls (11) that enter the clopped surface (4) (See fig. 1) (Col. 3, Lines 14-45).
Romeo does not teach putted balls that enter the sloped surface in a center section of width about 2.5 inches within an overall 4.25-inch width of the sloped surface would sink in a golf course environment.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “putted balls that enter the sloped surface in a center section of width about 2.5 inches within an overall 4.25-inch width of the sloped surface would sink in a golf course environment” is directed to mere rearrangement of parts (i.e. placement of the ball when hit along the golf putting device). Mere rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of design choice (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held that shifting the position of a device would not have modified the operation of the device), (See: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), where the court held that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 20, Romeo (Figure 1) teaches receiving a first putted golf ball on a sloped surface (4) of the device (Col. 3, Lines 14-45).
Romeo does not teach the device receiving placement at an angle as opposed to facing the user directly, thus reducing access of the putted ball to the sloped surface and to simulate a nonlevel putting surface.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “the device receiving placement at an angle as opposed to facing the user directly, thus reducing access of the putted ball to the sloped surface and to simulate a nonlevel putting surface” is directed to mere rearrangement of parts (i.e. placement of the ball when hit along the golf putting device). Mere rearrangement of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of design choice (See: In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), where the court held that shifting the position of a device would not have modified the operation of the device), (See: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), where the court held that the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
