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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/13/2025 has been entered.
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 1-5, 8, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormsbee (US D626,393) in view of Eisenbraun (US 2009/0158899) Spater (US D850,227).
Regarding claim 1, Ormsbee discloses a device for use with a golf bag, the device comprising: an elongated a loop (Fig. 1) including a semi-circular end, two sides and a second end, which is opposite the first end; a movable gate provided on one side of the elongated loop; and a cross member (Fig. 1, middle) dividing the elongated loop into a first loop (Fig. 1, bottom) and a second loop (Fig. 1, top), the first loop being defined by the cross member, a portion of the first side, the semi-circular end, and a portion of second straight side, and the second loop being defined by the cross member, a portion of side, the second end, and a portion of the other side, the cross member including a lip configured to function as a bottle opener with the second end. See Fig. 1. Ormsbee does not necessarily disclose the sides, end and gate being biased.
Eisenbraun, which is drawn to a carabiner bottle opening, discloses a movable gate (28) being movable from a biased closed position to an open position, the movable gate includes a first end (at 52) secured to a first long straight side by a pin (54), a spring (42) coupled to the pin to bias the movable gate to the closed position, and a second end (opposite 52) having a latch element configured to receive a mating latch element (56) formed on the first long straight side to secure the movable gate in place in the closed position. See Figs. 1-2. Thus, it 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 to have the gate of Ormsbee be as disclosed by Eisenbraun in order to facilitate the closing of the gate and automatically secure items thereto.
Spater, which is drawn to a connection device, discloses a first long straight side, a second long straight side, and a squared-off end, the first long straight side being parallel to the second long straight side, and wherein a cross-member is perpendicular to the first long straight side and the second long straight side and parallel to the squared-off end. See Figs. 1-2. Thus, it 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 to have the device of Ormsbee have the sides and squared-off end as disclosed by Spater in order to accommodate different objects. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the sides and ends as claimed, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 2, the lip of the cross member extends at an angle with respect to a plane of the device, the lip being configured to engage an edge of a bottle cap to remove the bottle cap. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, the second loop is capable of being configured to receive a strap of the golf bag to permanently secure the device to the golf bag. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Ormsbee discloses the claimed invention except for the device being fabricated from a metal material including zinc die cast material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the claimed material in order to have a strong device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, the loop is ridged. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the device shaped as claimed, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 10, the second loop is capable of being configured to open to enable the device to be attached to a golf bag. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, as modified above, the movable gate is a first movable gate, wherein the device further comprises a second movable gate provided on the first long straight side of the elongated loop, the second movable gate being movable from a biased closed position to an open position. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 15, Ormsbee does not disclose a method of removing a bottle cap from a bottle with the device of claim 1. Eisenbraun discloses a method as claimed. See Figs. 1-4. Thus, it 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 to have the device of Ormsbee remove a bottle cap, as disclosed by Eisenbraun, in order to access contents within a bottle.
Claims 11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormsbee as applied above in further view of Beard (US 2008/0173135).
Regarding claim 11, Ormsbee does not disclose a second cross member. Beard, which is drawn to a carabiner bottle opener, discloses a cross member (at 108B) that is a first cross member, the device further comprising a second cross member (at other 108B) extending between sides, the second cross member further dividing one of a first and second loop, the second cross member being perpendicular to the first long straight side and the second long straight side and parallel to the first cross member. See Fig. 5. Thus, it 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 to have a second cross member, as disclosed by Beard, on the device of Ormsbee in order to connect it to other items and straps. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have cross members as claimed, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 16, Ormsbee, as modified above, discloses a device for use with a golf bag, the device comprising: an elongated loop including a squared-off end, a first straight side, a second straight side, and a semi-circular end, which is opposite the squared-off end, the first straight side being parallel to the second straight side; a first cross member spaced from the square-off end and extending from the first straight side to the second straight side, the first cross member including a lip configured to function as a bottle opener with the squared-off end; a second cross member positioned between the first cross member and the semi-circular end and extending from the first straight side to the second straight side, wherein the first cross member and the second cross member are parallel with respect to one another and perpendicular to the first straight side and the second straight side, and wherein a first loop is defined by the second cross member, the first straight side, the second straight side, and the semi-circular end, a second loop is defined by the first cross member, the first straight side, the second straight side, and the squared-off end, and a third loop is defined by the first cross member, the first straight side, the second straight side, and the second cross member; and a movable gate provided on the first side of the first loop, the movable gate being movable from a biased closed position to an open position, the first loop being configured to receive an item wherein the movable gate includes a first end secured to the first long straight side proximate the cross member by a pin, a spring coupled to the pin to bias the movable gate to the closed position, and a second end having a latch element configured to receive a mating latch element formed on the first long straight side to secure the movable gate in place in the closed position.
Regarding claims 17-20, Ormsbee, as modified above, sufficiently discloses the claimed invention. Moreover, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the loops sized as claimed, 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 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 13, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormsbee as applied above in further view of Queener (US 9,717,966).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, Ormsbee does not disclose a strap as claimed. Queener, which is drawn to a device on a golf bag, discloses the golf bag including a strap (30) configured to secure the device (42) to the golf bag. See Figs. 1-2. Thus, it 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 to attach the device of Ormsbee via a strap, as disclosed by Queener, in order to conveniently transport the device during a round of golf.
Regarding claim 14, Ormsbee, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the strap material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the strap be fabricated from reinforced cloth material, in order to have a strong flexible strap, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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 Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734