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 .
Claims 4, and 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration. Applicant made the election of Group 2, directed to the embodiment in figure 28, without traverse, in the response dated 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCuaig(5333731) in view of Strasburg (2799315).
PNG
media_image1.png
895
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
802
167
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, McCuaig teaches a bag for carrying a set of golf clubs while playing golf and while traveling, the bag comprising: at least two panels (defined by each side 12/14 in fig. 1 ), each comprising a first face and an opposite second face, the first face comprising sleeves (inside 18/38) for insertion of shafts of golf clubs wherein the at least two panels are connected so as to provide a playing mode with the first faces facing outward (note that the two faces defined by each side 12/14 in fig. 1 are facing outward as claimed. Also noted the two panels are capable of being at 180 degrees via the hinge which is also a facing outward position), thus providing access to the golf clubs, and so as to provide a travel mode ((fig. 6) with the first faces facing inward, thus protecting the golf clubs while travelling.
McCuaig meets all claimed limitations except for the repositionable stoppers. repositionable stoppers for engaging the ends of the golf club shafts, whereby the height that each of the golf clubs extends beyond the panels is set by the position of the stoppers.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
335
333
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Strasburg teaches that it is known in the art to provide repositionable stoppers for a plurality of golfclub sleeves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the repositionable stoppers as taught by Strasburg to allow one to adjust the protruding height of the clubs for easy sorting of the clubs.
SET II:
Claims 1, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgner (2070254) in view of Adriaan (NL2029521).
PNG
media_image5.png
798
584
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Another object of my invention is to form a bag of articulated club-holding sections that may be folded flat for convenient transportation or reversely folded or spread to uncover the clubs.
Regarding claim 1, Burgner teaches a bag for carrying a set of golf clubs while playing golf and while traveling, the bag comprising: at least two panels (5), each comprising a first face and an opposite second face, Burgern teaches sleeves at 32 for insertion of golf club shafts and the least two panels are connected so as to provide a playing mode with the first faces facing outward (fig. 4), thus providing access to the golf clubs, and so as to provide a travel mode (3) with the first faces facing inward, thus protecting the golf clubs while travelling. Burger meets all claimed limitations except for the sleeve with repositionable stoppers.
PNG
media_image6.png
996
526
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Supports 7 are arranged in the bottom plate 6, on which the golf clubs 5 accommodated in the tubes 4 can rest with their handle. The supports 7 protrude from the bottom plate into the respective tubes 4 and can have different lengths from the bottom plate 6, so that their support surfaces at the top have different distances from the bottom plate 6.
As a result, a user can determine for himself at what height the 5 respective golf clubs 5 protrude above the tube element 3. The supports 7 can be in the form of bolts which are screw-fitted into the bottom plate 6. The bolts can be adjusted in the bottom plate 6 in such a way that the blades of the golf clubs 5 do not touch each other, so that annoying rattling of the blades during the game of golf is avoided.
Naturally, alternative forms and ways of fixing the supports 7 than those shown and described herein are conceivable.
Adriaan teaches that it is known in the art to provide golf clubs holding structure of sleeve shape and repositionable stoppers at 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide sleeve structures of with repositional stoppers as taught by Adriaan to keep the club secured and enable one to adjust the protrusion distance of the clubs from the openings of the sleeves.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, note there are four panels (each of panel 5 has two hinged panels in fig. 4), a first, second and third panel each comprising a first face and an opposite second face, the first face comprising sleeves for insertion of shafts of golf clubs and repositionable stoppers for engaging the ends of the golf club shafts, whereby the height that each of the golf clubs extends beyond the panels is set by the position of the stoppers (as modified by Adriaan, supra), and wherein the four panels are connected so as to provide a playing mode with the first faces facing outward, thus providing access to the golf clubs, and so as to provide a travel mode with the first faces facing inward, thus protecting the golf clubs while travelling.
Regarding claim 7, note that any panel in Burgner can be the fourth panel. The use for golf accessories is an intended use.
Regarding claim 8, note the device in Burgner has the fourth face carries two holders at 11’ in fig.7, and the first face of the first, second all carry four holders in fig. 7. Burgner does not teach the third panel carry a “four holders”. Note fig. 10 teaches four faces each having 5 holders (total 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the four panels hinged panel with four panels each having at least four holders as modified by Adriaan (note that one of the holder would carry the two holder as the fourth face, and the other to provide the desired amount of holder for the desired amount of golf clubs.
Claims 1, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgner (2070254) in view of McCuaig(5333731) and further in view of Strasburg (2799315). Regarding claim 1, Burgner teaches a bag for carrying a set of golf clubs while playing golf and while traveling, the bag comprising: at least two panels (5), each comprising a first face and an opposite second face, Burgern teaches sleeves at 32 for insertion of golf club shafts and the least two panels are connected so as to provide a playing mode with the first faces facing outward (fig. 4), thus providing access to the golf clubs, and so as to provide a travel mode (3) with the first faces facing inward, thus protecting the golf clubs while travelling. Burger meets all claimed limitations except for the sleeve with repositionable stoppers.
McCuaig teaches that it is known in the art to provide a golf club retaining structure of a plurality of sleeve and Strasburg teaches that it is known in the art to provide repositionable stoppers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the sleeve of McCuaig and the repositionable stoppers in Strasburg to provide an alternative holding structure of the golf club and for sorting the clubs easily.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights