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 .
Drawings
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 anchor portion comprising one or more legs terminating in feet, and where one or more of the legs is folding, and a slot capable of receiving and engaging a portion of a mobile phone and securing the mobile phone must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 150, 155, and 160. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 1, “one more” should read “one or more.”
I
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. US 2003/0207721, hereafter referred to as Hall.
Regarding claim 1, Hall teaches a rest (Figure 1, element 2) for a hand-held sporting implement, the rest comprising:
a vertically extending shaft (Figure 1, element 6);
an anchor portion (Figure 1, element 12) at a first, lower end of the shaft, the anchor portion operable to engage the ground and support the shaft vertically above the ground such that the shaft resists deflection;
a cradle portion (Figure 1, element 4) at a second, upper end of the shaft, the cradle portion defining an upwardly opening trough (Figure 1, element 10) running transverse to the shaft, the trough sized to accept and support a smoking implement, wherein, the cradle portion comprises one or more flange (Figure 1 and element 23) portions laterally extending from an upper end of the trough in a plane perpendicular to the vertically extending shaft, and wherein at least one of the flange portions defines a laterally opening, concave-out cutout (Figure 1, element 8) sized to accept a shaft or grip of the hand held sporting implement.
Regarding claim 2, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1, and the trough (Paragraph 0039, line 5) sized to accept and support a cigar.
Regarding claim 3, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1, and the trough (Paragraph 0039, line 5-7) sized to accept and support a cigarette.
Regarding claim 4, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1, and a portion of the cradle portion defining the trough has a semicircular cross section (Figure 1, element 26).
Regarding claim 5, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1, and a portion of the cradle portion defining the trough has a cross section including a smooth, continuous curve (Figure 1, element 26).
Regarding claim 9, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1, and an anchor portion comprising a spike (Figure 1, element 12) configured for being pushed into turf.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 2003/0207721 in view of Heffernan US 2003/0000536.
Regarding claim 6, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach a portion of the cradle portion defining the trough comprising flat planes arranged to define an open polygonal shape.
Heffernan teaches a smoking article holder with a trough comprising flat planes arranged to define an open polygonal shape (Figure 1, elements 12,14, and 18). Heffernan teaches that this open polygonal shape allows for flexibility when temporarily grasping various sizes of smoking articles.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Heffernan et al. to include a trough with an open polygonal shape to provide flexibility when temporarily grasping various sizes of smoking articles.
Regarding claim 7, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach a portion of the cradle portion defining the trough comprising three flat planar surfaces arranged in a square u-shape.
Heffernan teaches all elements of claim 6 and a smoking article holder with a trough comprising three flat planar surfaces arranged in a square u-shape (Figure 1, elements 12,14, and 18). Heffernan teaches that this square u-shape allows for flexibility when temporarily grasping a various sizes of smoking articles.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Heffernan to include a trough with a square u-shape to provide flexibility when temporarily grasping various sizes of smoking articles.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 2003/0207721 in view of Heffernan US 2003/0000536 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of King US 5842481.
Regarding claim 8, Hall in view of Heffernan teaches all elements of claims 1 and 6 but does not teach a portion of the cradle portion defining the trough comprising two flat planar surfaces arranged in a vee shape, having a vertex angle of between 10 and 80 degrees.
King teaches a smoking article holder with a trough comprising two flat planar surfaces arranged in a vee shape, having a vertex angle of 90 degrees (Figure 1, elements 14 and 15). King teaches that this vee shape allows the trough to more efficiently hold different size cigars securely.
However, King does not expressly disclose the vertex angle of the trough to be between 10 and 80 degrees as required by the claim.
King discloses that the vee shape needs to be optimized to efficiently hold different size cigars securely. (Col. 1, lines 58-61)
As seen in Fig. 1, the side panels support the cigar tangentially and as such the angle of the side panel vertex is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the angle of the vee shape changes the location of contact with the cigar which affects the security and versatility of the support.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the King trough to have an angle within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of King by making the vertex angle of the trough be between 10 and 80 degrees as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hall in view of Heffernan to incorporate the teachings of King to include a trough with two flat planar surfaces arranged in a vee shape, having a vertex angle of between 10 and 80 degrees to more efficiently hold different size cigars securely.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 2003/0207721 in view of Nappe US 2022/0080272.
Regarding claim 10, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach the anchor portion comprising one or more legs terminating in feet.
Nappe teaches a golf club support device with a one or more legs terminating in feet (Figure 1, elements 36 and 38). Nappe teaches that the folding legs allow the device to support a gold club without disrupting the turf.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Nappe to include an anchor portion with one or more legs terminating in feet to support a golf club without disrupting the turf.
Regarding claim 11, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach the anchor portion comprising one or more legs terminating in feet, wherein one or more of the legs is folding.
Nappe teaches all elements of claim 10 and teaches a golf club support device with one or more folding legs (Figure 1, element 36). Nappe teaches that the folding, or pivoting, legs allow the device to be easily collapsible for ease of transportation.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Nappe to include an anchor portion with one or more folding legs to provide a device that is collapsible and easily transportable.
Regarding claim 12, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach the anchor portion comprising one or more legs terminating in feet, wherein one or more of the feet comprises a non-slip coating or material.
Nappe teaches all elements of claim 10 and teaches a golf club support device with one or more legs (Figure 1, elements 36), each leg terminating in a foot (Figure 1, element 38) that maybe rubberized (Paragraph 0024 line 19-21). Nappe teaches that the rubberized feet allow the device be securely positioned on the ground.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Nappe to include an anchor portion with one or more legs terminating in rubberized feet to provide device that can be securely positioned on the ground.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 2003/0207721 in view of Nielsen US 5868143.
Regarding claim 13, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach at least one of the flange portions including a through hole sized to receive narrow portion of a golf tee and to resist passage of a wide portion of the golf tee.
Nielsen teaches cigar holder device with holes on the top of the cigar holder to store golf tees (Figure 4, element 15). Nappe teaches that the holes in the top of the cigar holder device make it convenient for a user to store golf tees.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Nappe to include a through hole to store a golf tee to provide a convenient place to store golf tees.
Regarding claim 17, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach at least one of the flange portions includes a through hole sized to receive one of a hook or hook-and-loop fastener for a towel.
Nielsen teaches cigar holder device with a through hole a hole to receive a device to hang a towel. Nappe teaches that the through hole makes it convenient for a user to store a towel.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Nappe to include a through hole to receive a device top store a towel to provide a convenient place to store a towel.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 2003/0207721 in view of Mauck US 5503394.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach a cradle with two flange portions, each having a laterally opening, concave-out cutout sized to accept the shaft or grip of a golf club, and wherein a first cutout is located on a first side of a centerline of the cradle, and a second cutout is located on a second side of the centerline of the cradle.
Mauck teaches a plurality of concave-out cutouts (Figure 3, element 33) in a flanged handle at the upper end of a golf accessory device. Note the figure above showing a first cutout above the centerline, and a second cut out below the centerline. Mauck teaches that the cutouts allow a single device to support up to four golf clubs.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Mauck to include two flange portions, each with a cutout sized to accept the shaft or grip of a golf club, and wherein a first cutout is located on a first side of a centerline of the cradle, and a second cutout is located on a second side of the centerline of the cradle, to provide a convenient method to support multiple golf clubs.
PNG
media_image2.png
475
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach a first cutout located a first distance from the centerline, and a second cutout is located a second distance from the centerline.
Mauck teaches all elements of claim 14 and a plurality of concave-out cutouts (Figure 3, element 33) in a flanged handle at the upper end of a golf accessory device. Note the figure above showing a first cutout a first distance above the centerline, and a second cutout a second distance below the centerline. Mauck teaches that the cutouts allow a single device to support up to four golf clubs.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Mauck to include two flange portions, each with a cutout sized to accept the shaft or grip of a golf club, and wherein a first cutout located a first distance from the centerline, and a second cutout is located a second distance from the centerline of the cradle, to provide a convenient method to support multiple golf clubs.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall et al. US 2003/0207721 in view of Dobson US 2019/0357688.
Regarding claim 16, Hall teaches all elements of claim 1 but does not teach a cradle further including, in a flange portion, a slot capable of receiving and engaging a portion of a mobile phone and securing the mobile phone.
Dobson teaches a flange portion of a cup-holder device with a rectangular slot capable of receiving and engaging a portion of a mobile phone and securing the mobile phone. Dobson teaches that the rectangular cell phone slot makes it convenient for a user to store a phone.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to have modified Hall to incorporate the teachings of Dobson to include a rectangular cell phone slot in a flange portion of the cradle to provide a convenient place to store a phone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711