DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 is currently pending.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20120003470 (“KR-470”) in view of KR 20110105043 (“KR-043”)1, U.S. Patent No. 5277306 to Sargent (“Sargent”), U.S. Patent No. 2854775 to Kleckley (“Kleckley”), and U.S. D693126 to Drummey (“Drummey”).
Regarding claim 1, KR-470 teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system comprising: an elongated fabric envelope (10) defining an axis X—X, wherein the envelope has opposite end portions, wherein the elongated fabric envelope is operative to accommodate one or more fishing rods having a handle and a reel, oriented longitudinally along the axis X—X (FIGS. 2, 3, 5 ¶¶ [0014]-[0017]), wherein the elongated fabric envelope defines an opening (20) oriented along the axis X—X and located along one of the end portions thereof; and an elongated zipper (30, ¶ [0016]) secured to edge margins of the elongated fabric envelope adjacent the opening (FIGS. 2, 3, 5 ¶¶ [0014]-[0017]), wherein the zipper has opposite end portions and includes at least one slide fastener pull (¶ [0016], teaching “zippers”; see also FIGS. 2, 3, 5), wherein the elongated zipper is configured and adapted such that the at least one slide fastener pull, when drawn together, reduces a size of the opening to allow only the one or more reels to extend therethrough outwardly from the elongated fabric envelope, while the handle of each of the one or more rods remains enclosed within the elongated fabric envelope; and wherein the at least one slide fastener pull is operative to close the opening when the at least one slide fastener pull is drawn together in the absence of a reel (¶ [0017]).
It very well appears that KR-470 teaches a spaced apart pair of slide fastener pulls, respectively located at each end portion when in an open position (¶¶ [0016]-[0017]). However, in case it is argued that KR-470 does not explicitly teach this claim limitation, then KR-043 teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel protecting system, including a spaced apart pair of slide fastener pulls (6, 6’), respectively located at each end portion when in an open position (FIG. 2; ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of KR-470 so that it includes a pair of slide fastener pulls, respectively located at each end portion when in an open position, as taught by KR-043, in order to more easily close the opening. The combined teachings of KR-470 and KR-043 would thus provide a system wherein the mechanism is configured and adapted such that the pulls, when drawn together, reduce a size of the opening to allow only the one or more reels to extend therethrough outwardly from the envelope, while the handle of each of the one or more rods remains enclosed within the envelope; and wherein the pulls are operative to close the opening when the pulls are drawn together in the absence of a reel.
KR-470 in view of KR-043 does not explicitly teach wherein a binding secured to a longitudinal additional edge margin opposite the opening, and wherein the binding forms a loop that extends beyond one of the end portions.
Sargent teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system, including a binding (120) secured to a longitudinal additional edge margin of the elongated fabric envelope opposite the opening, and wherein the binding forms a loop (131) that extends beyond one of the end portions (FIG. 1; Col. 4, line 58 to Col. 5, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of KR-470 and KR-043 to further include the binding secured to a longitudinal edge margin of the elongated fabric envelope opposite the opening, wherein the binding forms a loop, as taught by Sargent, in order to strengthen the structure and allow a user to hang the system (Col. 4, line 58 to Col. 5, line 7).
Sargent teaches the elongated fabric envelope comprises a durable synthetic fabric (Col. 4, lines 61-64 teaching DuPont Cordura Nylon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination so that the elongated fabric envelope comprises a durable synthetic fabric, as taught by Sargent, in order to improve its durability.
Sargent teaches it is water repellant (Col. 4, lines 61-64), but the combination does not explicitly teach the fabric envelope is waterproof.
Kleckley teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system, including a fabric envelope that is waterproof (Col. 1, lines 27-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination so that the envelope is waterproof, as taught by Kleckley, in order to improve its durability, especially when fishing.
Kleckley teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system, including a spaced-part pair of straps (140) to encompass more than one of the elongated fabric envelopes (FIGS. 1-3; Col. 2, lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination by further including the pair of straps, as taught by Kleckley, in order to allow a user to conveniently carry multiple fishing rods.
Drummey teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system, comprising spaced apart attachment loops secured to the binding and a shoulder strap having a first end and a second end with a clip at each of the first end and the second end, wherein each clip is operative to removably couple the shoulder strap to one of the attachment loops (FIGS. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination to further include the attachment loops and shoulder strap, as taught by Drummey, in order to allow a user to carry the system on his or her shoulder.
Alternatively, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20120003470 (“KR-470”) in view of KR 20110105043 (“KR-043”)2, U.S. Patent No. 5277306 to Sargent, and U.S. D693126 to Drummey (“Drummey”).
Regarding claim 1, KR-470 teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system comprising: an elongated fabric envelope (10) defining an axis X—X, wherein the envelope has opposite end portions, wherein the elongated fabric envelope is operative to accommodate one or more fishing rods having a handle and a reel, oriented longitudinally along the axis X—X (FIGS. 2, 3, 5 ¶¶ [0014]-[0017]), wherein the elongated fabric envelope defines an opening (20) oriented along the axis X—X and located along one of the end portions thereof; and an elongated zipper (30, ¶ [0016]) secured to edge margins of the elongated fabric envelope adjacent the opening (FIGS. 2, 3, 5 ¶¶ [0014]-[0017]), wherein the zipper has opposite end portions and includes at least one slide fastener pull (¶ [0016], teaching “zippers”; see also FIGS. 2, 3, 5), wherein the elongated zipper is configured and adapted such that the at least one slide fastener pull, when drawn together, reduces a size of the opening to allow only the one or more reels to extend therethrough outwardly from the elongated fabric envelope, while the handle of each of the one or more rods remains enclosed within the elongated fabric envelope; and wherein the at least one slide fastener pull is operative to close the opening when the at least one slide fastener pull is drawn together in the absence of a reel (¶ [0017]).
It very well appears that KR-470 teaches a spaced apart pair of slide fastener pulls, respectively located at each end portion when in an open position (¶¶ [0016]-[0017]). However, in case it is argued that KR-470 does not explicitly teach this claim limitation, then KR-043 teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel protecting system, including a spaced apart pair of slide fastener pulls (6, 6’), respectively located at each end portion when in an open position (FIG. 2; ¶ [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of KR-470 so that it includes a pair of slide fastener pulls, respectively located at each end portion when in an open position, as taught by KR-043, in order to more easily close the opening. The combined teachings of KR-470 and KR-043 would thus provide a system wherein the mechanism is configured and adapted such that the pulls, when drawn together, reduce a size of the opening to allow only the one or more reels to extend therethrough outwardly from the envelope, while the handle of each of the one or more rods remains enclosed within the envelope; and wherein the pulls are operative to close the opening when the pulls are drawn together in the absence of a reel.
KR-470 in view of KR-043 does not explicitly teach wherein a binding secured to a longitudinal additional edge margin opposite the opening, and wherein the binding forms a loop that extends beyond one of the end portions.
Sargent teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system, including a binding (120) secured to a longitudinal additional edge margin of the elongated fabric envelope opposite the opening, and wherein the binding forms a loop (131) that extends beyond one of the end portions (FIG. 1; Col. 4, line 58 to Col. 5, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of KR-470 and KR-043 to further include the binding secured to a longitudinal edge margin of the elongated fabric envelope opposite the opening, wherein the binding forms a loop, as taught by Sargent, in order to strengthen the structure and allow a user to hang the system (Col. 4, line 58 to Col. 5, line 7).
Kleckley teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system, including a spaced-part pair of straps (140) to encompass more than one of the elongated fabric envelopes (FIGS. 1-3; Col. 2, lines 24-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination by further including the pair of straps, as taught by Kleckley, in order to allow a user to conveniently carry multiple fishing rods.
Drummey teaches a fishing rod-enclosing and reel-protecting system, comprising spaced apart attachment loops secured to the binding and a shoulder strap having a first end and a second end with a clip at each of the first end and the second end, wherein each clip is operative to removably couple the shoulder strap to one of the attachment loops (FIGS. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination to further include the attachment loops and shoulder strap, as taught by Drummey, in order to allow a user to carry the system on his or her shoulder.
It was well known in the art before the effective filing date to make fishing rod envelopes out of a durable synthetic fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, Sargent, Kleckley, and Drummey combination so that the elongated fabric envelope comprises a durable synthetic fabric, in order to improve its durability.
It was well known in the art before the effective filing date to make fishing rod envelopes out of fabric that is waterproof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, Sargent, Kleckley, and Drummey combination so that the envelope is waterproof, in order to improve its durability, especially when fishing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and declaration filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The combined teachings would not change the principal operation of KR-470. Making the elongated fabric envelope out of a waterproof and durable synthetic fabric would not necessarily interfere with the envelope’s ability to stretch.
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination so that the elongated fabric envelope comprises a durable synthetic fabric, as taught by Sargent, in order to improve its durability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, and Sargent combination so that the envelope is waterproof, as taught by Kleckley, in order to improve its durability, especially when fishing.
Also as discussed above, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date to make fishing rod envelopes out of a durable synthetic fabric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, Sargent, Kleckley, and Drummey combination so that the elongated fabric envelope comprises a durable synthetic fabric, in order to improve its durability. It was well known in the art before the effective filing date to make fishing rod envelopes out of fabric that is waterproof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of the KR-470, KR-043, Sargent, Kleckley, and Drummey combination so that the envelope is waterproof, in order to improve its durability, especially when fishing.
Making the envelope from waterproof and durable synthetic fabric would not necessarily interfere with the envelope’s ability to stretch.
Just because a fabric is waterproof does not mean that the fabric cannot stretch. Likewise, just because a fabric is durable and synthetic does not mean that the fabric cannot stretch. There are countless well-known fabrics that would be suitable for the envelope and which are waterproof, durable, and synthetic.
Applicant contends that “non-stretchy fabric eliminates stretch entirely” (Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 1). In their Declaration, applicant details their experimental testing of one particular alternative envelope, namely the Dream Fishing Rod Cover (“Dream Fishing”), which uses a stretchable material. Applicant states that “Non-stretchy fabric maintains constant dimensions (0% elongation), exhibits complete recovery with no degradation, and preserves zipper functionality… Stretchy fabric (Dream Fishing) accommodates fishing rods through 42-58% material elongation, consistent with KR-470’s principle of elastic deformation. Non-stretchy fabric (Pole Guards) accommodates rods through 0% elongation, relying instead on proper dimensional sizing and mechanical zipper closure” (Declaration at pg. 7).
This does not negate the fact that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the envelope of the KR-470 so that the envelope is waterproof, durable, and synthetic. It is also noted that nowhere in applicant’s claims or specification is there any mention of the stretchability of the fabric.
The combined teachings would not change the principal operation of KR-470.
Applicant argues this, saying that “KR-470 operates by elastic deformation- the fabric stretches to accommodate rods and contracts to secure them. Without stretch capability, this operating principle is eliminated entirely” (Applicant’s Remarks at pg. 1). As discussed above, however, simply making the envelope out of a waterproof and durable synthetic fabric would not necessarily interfere with the envelope’s ability to stretch.
Applicant has not shown that the “Three Unexpected Consequences of Fabric Choice” are actually unexpected.
It is also noted that nowhere in applicant’s claims or specification is there any mention of the stretchability of the fabric.
Conclusion
This is an RCE. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. 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 MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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.
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Foreign references and their English translations were provided in the Office Action mailed 5/10/2024.
2 Foreign references and their English translations were provided in the Office Action mailed 5/10/2024.