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 .
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.
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.
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 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 2022/0212082) in view of Swan (US 2025/0170470) (hereinafter ‘470).
Referring to Claim 1: Swan teaches a golf training apparatus, comprising: a head (Figure 15B, #1508); a first plurality of rails (Figure 15A, #1504); a plurality of standoffs coupled at a first end to the head and at a second end to the first plurality of rails (Figure 15A, #1506), wherein: the plurality of standoffs are configured to distance the head from the first plurality of rails by a predetermined amount (Figure 15A). Swan does not teach a second and third plurality of rails. ‘470 teaches a golf training apparatus comprising a second plurality of rails (Figure 10, #740B) and a third plurality of rails (¶0036), wherein the first plurality of rails are coupled to the second plurality of rails and the second plurality of rails are coupled to the third plurality of rails (¶0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of ‘470 into the invention of Swan in order to provide a longer putting path to accommodate teaching longer putting strokes.
Referring to Claim 3: Swan further teaches that the plurality of standoffs (Figure 15a, #1506), the first plurality of rails (Figure 15A, #1504), and the head (Figure 15A, #1508) are configured to form and opening through which a golf ball can pass (¶0066).
Referring to Claims 4 and 20: Swan in view of ‘470 further teaches that the first plurality of rails, the second plurality of rails, and the third plurality of rails form a landing area through which the golf ball passes, the opening being to the landing area (Figure 15A).
Referring to Claim 6: Swan does not specifically teach the length of the plurality of rails. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the length of the first rails the same as the diameter of the head since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPQ 1955). In the instant case, the device of Swan would not operate differently with the claimed length and it appears that the applicant has placed no criticality on the length of the rails, indicating that the length may fall within certain ranges (specification, ¶0023-¶0025).
Referring to Claims 7 and 8: Swan does not teach how the plurality of rails are attached. ‘470 teaches a golf training apparatus with a first plurality of rails comprising a locking pin (Figure 10, #742), wherein the locking pin protrudes through an opening at an end of a corresponding one of the second plurality of rails (Figure 10, #744), and wherein each of the second plurality of rails comprises a locking pin, wherein the locking pin protrudes through an opening at an end of a corresponding one of the third plurality of rails (¶0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of ‘470 into the invention of Swan in order to provide a commonly known telescoping fastener to attach the rails, allowing for quick set up and a collapsible storage design.
Referring to Claim 10: Swan does not teach the specifics of the rails and zones. ‘470 teaches a golf training apparatus with a first plurality of rails (Figure 10, #740A) comprising two first rails that are spaced apart by a distance and define a first zone (Figure 10); a second plurality of rails (Figure 10, #740B) comprising two second rails that are spaced apart by the distance and define a second zone (Figure 10); and a third plurality of rails comprising two third rails that are spaced apart by the distance and define a third zone (¶0036, lines 16-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of ‘470 into the invention of Swan in order to guide a swing through various distances, resulting in a more versatile golf training apparatus.
Referring to Claim 19: Swan teaches a golf training apparatus, comprising: a head (Figure 15B, #1508); a first rail and a second rail (Figure 15A, #1504’s); a first standoff and a second standoff opposite the first standoff, wherein each of the first standoff and the second standoff are coupled at a first end to the head and at a second end to the first rail and second rail, respectively (Figure 15A, #1506). Swan does not teach a third through sixth rails. ‘470 teaches a golf training apparatus comprising third and fourth rails (Figure 10, #740B) and fifth and sixth rails (¶0036), wherein the first and second rails are coupled to the third fourth rails and the third and fourth rails are coupled to the fifth and sixth of rails (¶0036); and the first, third, and fifth rails define a first side of a landing area and the second, fourth, and sixth rails define a second side opposite the first side of the landing area (Figure 8, between #740s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of ‘470 into the invention of Swan in order to provide a longer putting path to accommodate teaching longer putting strokes.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 2022/0212082) in view of ‘470 (US 2025/0170470) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faulkner et al. (US 6,869,288) (hereinafter Faulkner).
Referring to Claim 2: Swan in view of ‘470 does not teach different colored rails. Faulkner teaches a golf training apparatus with a first rail with a first color (Figure 1, #18 and #20), a second rail of a second color, and a third rail of a third color, wherein the first color, the second color, and the third color differ from each other (col. 6, lines 41-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Faulkner into the invention of Swan and utilize different colors to indicate different putting lengths or other pertinent information to a user as a matter of obvious design choice. Furthermore, patentable novelty cannot be principally predicated on mere printed matter and arrangements thereof but must reside basically in physical structure. In re Montgomery, 102 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1954).
Referring to Claim 9: Swan in view of ‘470 does not teach a marker on the rails. Faulkner teaches a golf training apparatus wherein a third plurality of rails comprises a marker (Figure 1, #43) that is positioned a predetermined distance from an endline of a first rail (col. 6, lines 48-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Faulkner into the invention of Swan and include a marker on the third rails, spaced from the head, in order to indicate a distance easily to a user.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 2022/0212082) in view of ‘470 (US 2025/0170470) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cook (US 5,503,395).
Swan does not teach that the head is circular. Cook teaches a golf training apparatus with a head above rails, wherein the head is circularly shaped (Figure 3, #16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Cook into the invention of Swan in order to help a golfer focus on the ball when putting (Cook, col. 4, lines 27-29).
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 2022/0212082) in view of ‘470 (US 2025/0170470) and Cook (US 5,503,395).
Referring to Claim 11: Swan teaches a golf training apparatus, comprising: a head (Figure 15B, #1508); a first plurality of rails (Figure 15A, #1504); and a plurality of standoffs coupled at a first end to the head and at a second end to the first plurality of rails (Figure 15A, #15B, #1506) coupled at a first end to the head and at a second end to the first plurality of rails; wherein the plurality of standoffs (Figure 15a, #1506), the first plurality of rails (Figure 15A, #1504), and the head (Figure 15A, #1508) are configured to form and opening through which a golf ball can pass (¶0066). Swan does not teach a second and third plurality of rails connected to each other or a circular head. ‘470 teaches a golf training apparatus comprising a second plurality of rails (Figure 10, #740B) and a third plurality of rails (¶0036), wherein the first plurality of rails are coupled to the second plurality of rails and the second plurality of rails are coupled to the third plurality of rails (¶0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of ‘470 into the invention of Swan in order to provide a longer putting path to accommodate teaching longer putting strokes.
Cook teaches a golf training apparatus with a head above rails, wherein the head is circularly shaped (Figure 3, #16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Cook into the invention of Swan in order to help a golfer focus on the ball when putting (Cook, col. 4, lines 27-29).
Referring to Claim 12: Swan in view of ‘470 further teaches that the first plurality of rails, the second plurality of rails, and the third plurality of rails form a landing area through which the golf ball passes, the opening being to the landing area (Figure 15A).
Referring to Claim 13: Swan further teaches that the plurality of standoffs are configured to distance the head from the first plurality of rails by a predetermined amount (Figure 15A; height of #1506).
Referring to Claim 14: Swan does not specifically teach that the predetermined amount is between 1.7 to 3 inches. However, Swan does teach that the height is at least taller than the diameter of a golf ball (¶0066; Figure 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the predetermined amount between 1.7 and 3 inches since it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranged disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Furthermore, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range beyond it being larger than a golf ball (¶0045), which Swan discloses.
Referring to Claim 15: Swan does not teach the diameter of the circular head. Cook teaches that the head has a diameter of 2.5 inches (col. 4, lines 28-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the diameter of the head between 4 and 5 inches since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPQ 1955). In the instant case, the proposed combination would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and it appears that the applicant has placed no criticality on the diameter of the head, indicating that the diameter may fall within a range (specification, ¶0023).
Referring to Claim 16: Swan does not specifically teach the length of the plurality of rails. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the length of the first rails the same as the diameter of the head since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPQ 1955). In the instant case, the device of Swan would not operate differently with the claimed length and it appears that the applicant has placed no criticality on the length of the rails, indicating that the length may fall within certain ranges (specification, ¶0023-¶0025).
Referring to Claim 17: Swan does not specifically teach the length of the plurality of rails. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the length of the rails between 4 to 12 inches since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPQ 1955). In the instant case, the device of Swan would not operate differently with the claimed length and it appears that the applicant has placed no criticality on the length of the rails, indicating that the length may fall within certain ranges (specification, ¶0023-¶0025).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swan (US 2022/0212082) in view of ‘470 (US 2025/0170470) and Cook (US 5,503,395) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faulkner (US 6,869,288).
Swan does not teach a marker on the rails. Faulkner teaches a golf training apparatus wherein a third plurality of rails comprises a marker (Figure 1, #43) that is positioned a predetermined distance from an endline of a first rail (col. 6, lines 48-55). Although Faulkner does not disclose the exact location of the marker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the marker at any specified distance, including 12 inches, in order to utilize the device as an accurate golfing aid for golf putting swings as taught by Faulkner (col. 7, Table 1; col. 6, lines 41-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to incorporate the teachings of Faulkner into the invention of Swan and include a marker on the third rails, spaced from the head, in order to indicate a distance easily to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deacon (US 9,126,092), Finch (US 2013/0203516), Miller (US 4,423,875), Kim (US 6,443,852), Chang (US 2005/0130756), Hart (US 2011/0111876), and Kawashima et al. (US 7,686,703) all disclose golf putting apparatuses with structural similarities to that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA N JUNGE whose telephone number is (571)270-7816. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-6PM Eastern.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/KRISTINA N JUNGE/Quality Assurance Specialist, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights