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 .
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following claimed features must be shown, without entering any new matter: front section perimeter overlies the rear section perimeter in claim 1, a liner head end opposite the liner shaft end and sized to enclose the golf club head in claim 5, the detachment of the liner from the shell head end in claim 5, the length of 1.5 inches in claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, it is unclear where front section perimeter overlies the rear section perimeter. Fig. 1 shows the front section perimeter, identified as 115, and the rear section perimeter, identified as 116, the zipper as 125 and 115 being in contact with 116, but NOT overlie 115. Please identify in the drawing where front section perimeter overlies the rear section perimeter.
In claim 5, the limitation “a liner head end opposite the liner shaft end and sized to enclose the golf club head, wherein the liner head end is disposed within but detached from the shell head end” is confusing: a) fig. 1 shows the liner is on one side. How would the liner would enclose the golf club head as recited? b) It is unclear how the liner head end is detached from the shell head end? Does the liner detach only at the head end?
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a length of about 1.5 to 5 inches” is confusing. It is unclear where the measurement of this length? If the zipper length is about 1.5 inches. It seems that with length of 1.5 inches, it is impossible for any standard size golf club to pass through the zipper opening. Please explain.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what comprises the liner front panel and the liner rear panel and the stitching connection. Fig. 7 shows the portions 143 and 148 which seem they are on the same piece of material.
Applicant to provide a cross section about the middle of the cover in fig. 2 to show where are various liner panels attachments and identify all recited structures in the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
509
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
SET I:
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung (5437320).
PNG
media_image2.png
469
367
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
718
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sung teaches a shell having: a shell shaft end (25 fig. 3), comprising a contiguous loop of cover material that defines a shell opening sized to receive the golf club head; a shell head end (at 37 fig. 3) opposite the shell shaft end and sized to enclose the golf club head, including a shell rear section (21 fig. 1) having a rear section perimeter (47); and a shell front section (at 37 fig. 1) having a front section perimeter (39), wherein the shell front section is movable between a closed position in which front section perimeter overlies the rear section perimeter (fig. 1), in and an open position, in which the front section perimeter is spaced from the rear section perimeter (fig. 1); and a coupler (41) for releasably securing the shell front section in the closed position.
Regarding claim 10, note an intermediate panel (39) forming the shell front section.
SET II:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grodin (20090124437).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Grodin teaches a shell (figs. 2 and 3) having: a shell shaft end (at 40), comprising a contiguous loop of cover material that defines a shell opening sized to receive the golf club head; a shell head end (at 20 fig. 2) opposite the shell shaft end and sized to enclose the golf club head, including a shell rear section (one side of 20 fig. 2 or 3 with portion 48/40) having a rear section perimeter (at about zipper 36); and a shell front section (the other side of 20 fig. 2 or 3 with portion 44) having a front section perimeter (about the zipper at 36 on the other side), wherein the shell front section is movable between a closed position in which front section perimeter overlies the rear section perimeter (note 44 overlap 40), in and an open position, in which the front section perimeter is spaced from the rear section perimeter (fig. 3); and a coupler (zipper 36) for releasably securing the shell front section in the closed position.
Regarding claim 2, note the zipper each having the respective a rear tooth thread extending around the rear section perimeter and a front tooth thread extending around the front section perimeter as claimed.
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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodin in view of Pinero et al. (20050263417). Grodin meets all claimed limitations except for the intermediate panel (240) forming the shell front section.
PNG
media_image4.png
769
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Each of the side panels 50, 60 can itself be assembled from two or more separate pieces of material.
Regarding claim 10, Pinero teaches that it is known in the art to provide a panel with intermediate panels 54 attached together, cited above. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide intermediate panels as taught by Pinero to provide the desired protections.
Regarding claim 11, note the zipper each having the respective a rear tooth thread extending around the rear section perimeter and a front tooth thread extending around the front section perimeter as claimed.
Claims 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodin as set forth above in claims 1 and 10, and further in view of Boyle (20130125287) or Moreland (4641400) or Flaum et al. (4112556). Grodin meets all claimed limitations except for the shell front section includes a front lip defining the front section perimeter and the shell rear section includes a rear lip defining the rear section perimeter; the front lip obscures the front tooth thread; and the rear lip obscures the rear tooth thread in fig. 3.
PNG
media_image5.png
416
818
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
443
673
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
209
520
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
176
351
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Boyle teaches that it is known in the art to provide a front lip (38) defining the front section perimeter and the shell rear section includes a rear lip (40) defining the rear section perimeter; the front lip obscures the front tooth thread; and the rear lip obscures the rear tooth thread in fig. 9. Moreland teaches that it is known in the art to provide a front lip (64) defining the front section perimeter and the shell rear section includes a rear lip (66) defining the rear section perimeter; the front lip obscures the front tooth thread; and the rear lip obscures the rear tooth thread in fig. 4. Flaum teaches that it is known in the art to provide a front lip (20) defining the front section perimeter and the shell rear section includes a rear lip (22) defining the rear section perimeter; the front lip obscures the front tooth thread; and the rear lip obscures the rear tooth thread in fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a zipper structure with front and rear lip as taught by Boyle or Moreland or Flaum to provide added protection and safety and/or aesthetic.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the zipper comprising the rear and front tooth thread of the length about 1.5-5inches to provide the desired length of the opening.
SET III:
Claims 1-6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shim (KR200204796) in view of Boyle or Moreland or Flaum.
PNG
media_image9.png
734
305
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
394
349
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
487
258
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Shim teaches a shell (3) having: a shell shaft end (lower end), comprising a contiguous loop of cover material that defines a shell opening sized to receive the golf club head; a shell head end (at 2b) opposite the shell shaft end and sized to enclose the golf club head, including a shell rear section having a rear section perimeter (on one side of the zipper); and a shell front section (the other side of zipper) having a front section perimeter (about the zipper 2b), wherein the shell front section is movable between a closed position, and an open position, in which the front section perimeter is spaced from the rear section perimeter; and a coupler (zipper 2b) for releasably securing the shell front section in the closed position. Shim meets all claimed limitations except for the front section perimeter overlies the rear section perimeter. Boyle or Moreland or Flaum, each teaches that it is known in the art to provide a zipper coverings forming lips (claim 3 as set forth supra) covering one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the front section perimeter overlies the rear section perimeter as taught by Boyle or Moreland or Flaum to provide added protection and/or added safety and for to hide the zipper for aesthetic.
Regarding claim 2, note the zipper each having the respective a rear tooth thread extending around the rear section perimeter and a front tooth thread extending around the front section perimeter as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, note the shell front panel has a front panel and a front region as claimed. and the shell rear panel has a rear panel and a rear region as broadly claimed.
Regarding claim 5, note the liner (3) having a shaft end (at about 3a fig. 2), an interior surface and a contiguous loop of liner material defining a liner opening sized to receive the golf club head and a liner head end (the upper portion of 3) opposite the liner shaft end and sized to enclose the golf club head, wherein the liner head end is disposed within but detached from the shell head end, i.e., unattached or detachable via 3a/2a fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide to provide the zipper about 5 inches to provide the desired size for the opening.
Regarding claim 10, note there is an intermediate panel (at 2) which forms part of the shell front section as claimed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim rejection, as set forth above in claim 6, and further in view of Daly (20100051214).
Regarding claim 7, note Shim teaches the liner comprising a liner front panel (3), a liner rear panel (the opposite panel), a liner rear panel (148) that are coupled together via stitching; wherein the cover comprises an open configuration such that the front panel is folded relative to the liner and rear panel (fig. 2) such that a front panel interior surface is exposed wherein the cover comprises a closed configuration such that the front tooth thread engages the rear tooth thread (when 2b in closed position)
Shim meets all claimed limitations except for the zipper is devoid of a zipper pull.
PNG
media_image12.png
505
364
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Daly teaches that it is known in the art to provide a zipper without a zipper pull, i.e, the zipper pull 29 is removed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a zipper without a zipper pull to keep the fastening structure, i.e., zipper from view and/or for added security (prevent theft).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Shim rejection, as set forth above, and further in view of Bevier (5131442) or Kronenberger(20060163093).
Regarding claim 8, Bevier teaches that it is known in the art to provide a indicia region (at 52), and Kronenberger also teaches that it is known in the art to provide indicia region (at A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the indicia region as taught by Bevier or Kronenberger to provide advertisement and/or logo.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the customizable region has an area ranging from 2 in2 to 9 in2 to provide the desired size of the logo and/or advertisement.
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