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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12-13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 7-8 should present like line 4. The colon after layer appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 12, lines 9-10 should present like line 6. The colon after layer appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 12, line 22, “the edge of canopy of the golf cart” should be changed to --the edge of the golf cart canopy--.
In claim 12, remove “and” from line 16 and add to line 19.
In claim 13, line 2-3, “acrylic; and polyester” should be changed to --acrylic and polyester--. These are listing characteristics of one element, not listing separate elements, see MPEP 37 CFR 1.75(i).
In claim 17, lines 15-16 should present like lines 10-11. The colon after layer appears to be a typographical error.
In claims 1, 12, and 17, “and is parallel to the first stretch layer” should be changed to --the second stretch layer is parallel to the first stretch layer—and moved to after line 12, “wherein:” if that is indeed what is being recited in this limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the canopy" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “an edge of a golf cart canopy” in lines 13-14. It is unclear if this is the same as the canopy of a golf cart as is recited in line 3. For examination purposes, the canopy is being considered the same canopy. With any amendments moving forward, please be consistent with referencing limitations.
Claim 2 recites “the entire edge of the canopy of the cart”. It is unclear if this is the same as the canopy of a golf cart as is recited in line 3 of claim 1, and/or the canopy recited in lines 13-14 of claim 1. For examination purposes, the canopy is being considered the same canopy and the cart is being considered the same golf cart as in claim 1. With any amendments moving forward, please be consistent with referencing limitations.
Claims 2, 12, and 17 recite the limitation “a circular piece of fabric”. There is nothing circular within the drawings and no further explanation of the term within the specification. For examining purposes, the limitation is being examined as a fabric piece that is connected to form a continuous piece of fabric.
Claims 3-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 8, 12-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurman et al. (US 2008/0164713) in view of Dang (US 5456515).
Regarding claim 1, Saurman et al. discloses a golf cart fringe (Fig. 1, (20), paragraph [[0007] notes benefits), the golf cart fringe comprising: a body ((20), paragraph [0021], made from polyethylene netting or the like), the body configured to be placed on the canopy of a golf cart (this is intended use language, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As long as the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. Here, Saurman et al. has a structure that can be placed on the canopy of a golf cart); a first stretch layer (portion included within stitching (22)), wherein the first stretch layer includes: an elastic material (paragraph [0022], (24) is a stretch cord); and a portion of the body surrounding the elastic material (Fig. 2 shows a portion of the body surrounding (24) within stitching (22)); and a second stretch layer (portion included within stitching (22)), wherein the second stretch layer: includes: an elastic material (paragraph [0022], (24) is a stretch cord); and a portion of the body surrounding the elastic material (Fig. 2 shows a portion of the body surrounding (24) within stitching (22)); and is parallel to the first stretch layer (Fig. 2); wherein: the first layer is configured to be placed above an edge of a golf cart canopy; the second layer is configured to be placed below the edge of the golf cart canopy (this is intended use language, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As long as the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. Here, Saurman et al. has a structure that can have a layer placed above an edge of the canopy (upper portion including (22)), and a layer placed below the edge of the canopy (lower portion including (22))).
Saurman et al. does not explicitly disclose the body is capable of fully enclosing the edge of the golf cart canopy.
Dang, like Saurman et al, teaches a vehicle fringe and further teaches a body that is configured to be placed on the canopy of a vehicle, wherein a first layer is configured to be placed above an edge of the canopy; the second layer is configured to be placed below the edge of the canopy, and fully enclose the edge of the vehicle canopy (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. to provide a body that is configured to fully enclose the edge of the vehicle canopy as taught by Dang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid the need of the hooks of Saurman et al. to connect the two ends of the body, and with less components, the device is easier to manufacture and reduces the chances of a component breaking down. Please note in the combination, the vehicle is the golf cart as taught by Saurman et al.
Regarding claim 2, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 1, and teaches (references to Dang) wherein the body (22) includes a circular piece of fabric configured to be placed on the entire edge of the canopy of the cart (As best understood with respect to the 112b rejection, the body includes a fabric piece that is connected to form a continuous piece of fabric, see Figs. 1 and 3, which includes an opening of sufficient size to substantially expose the roof, i.e. canopy, of the vehicle (col.3, lines 44-47)).
Regarding claim 8, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 1. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the second stretch layer is between 4 and 5 inches in distance from the first stretch layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. for the second stretch layer to be between 4 and 5 inches in distance from the first stretch layer, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the body of Saurman et al. is cut to a proper size, which would be between 4 and 5 inches if that is what is required by the design and size of the golf cart (Saurman et al.: paragraph: [0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Saurman et al. discloses a golf cart fringe (Fig. 1, (20), paragraph [[0007] notes benefits), the golf cart fringe comprising: a body ((20), paragraph [0021], made from polyethylene netting or the like); a first stretch layer (portion included within stitching (22)), wherein the first stretch layer includes: an elastic material (paragraph [0022], (24) is a stretch cord); and a portion of the body surrounding the elastic material (Fig. 2 shows a portion of the body surrounding (24) within stitching (22)); and a second stretch layer (portion included within stitching (22)), wherein the second stretch layer: includes: an elastic material (paragraph [0022], (24) is a stretch cord); and a portion of the body surrounding the elastic material (Fig. 2 shows a portion of the body surrounding (24) within stitching (22)); and is parallel to the first stretch layer (Fig. 2); wherein: the first layer is configured to be placed above an edge of a golf cart canopy; the second layer is configured to be placed below the edge of the golf cart canopy (this is intended use language, which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. As long as the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. Here, Saurman et al. has a structure that can have a layer placed above an edge of the canopy (upper portion including (22)), and a layer placed below the edge of the canopy (lower portion including (22))).
Saurman et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the body includes a circular piece of fabric; and one or more folds; the body is configured to fully enclose the edge of the golf cart canopy; the elastic material in the first stretch layer and the elastic material in the second stretch layer are configured to compress enough that the golf cart fringe remains on the edge of canopy of the golf cart.
Dang, like Saurman et al., teaches a vehicle fringe (Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 10-11, col 4, lines 64-67, (20), suitable for a vehicle (10) having a roof portion (12), a golf cart has a roof portion), the vehicle fringe comprising: a body (22), the body includes a circular piece of fabric (As best understood with respect to the 112b rejection, the body includes a fabric piece that is connected to form a continuous piece of fabric, see Figs. 1 and 3, which includes an opening of sufficient size to substantially expose the roof of the vehicle (col.3, lines 44-47); and one or more folds (Figs. 4 and 8, col. 7, lines 5-9 teaches folds in the body, show that the folds in the body allow for the expansion of the body to fit around the canopy of the vehicle, fully enclosing the edge); the elastic material in the first stretch layer and the elastic material in the second stretch layer are configured to compress enough that the vehicle fringe remains on the edge of the roof/canopy of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. to provide a circular piece of fabric for the body as taught by Dang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid the need of the hooks of Saurman et al. to connect the two ends of the body, and with less components, the device is easier to manufacture and reduces the chances of a component breaking down. Additionally, the one or more folds in the body allow for the expansion of the body when stretched. Please note in the claim as written, the one or more folds are not required to remain while in use and the vehicle is the golf cart as taught by Saurman et al.
Regarding claim 13, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 12, and teaches (references to Dang) wherein the fabric includes at least one of: acrylic; and polyester (col. 10, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 14, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 12, and teaches (references to Saurman et al.) wherein the body extends only to an edge of the second stretch layer along a portion of a circumference of the body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Saurman et al. discloses a golf cart (10), the golf cart comprising: a cart (10), wherein the cart is a motorized vehicle configured to use on a golf course (paragraph [0008]); a canopy (14) attached to the cart, wherein the canopy is configured to provide shade to a driver of the cart (Fig. 1, by being above the drive of the golf cart, the canopy shades the driver from direct sun above); a golf cart fringe (Fig. 1, (20), paragraph [[0007] notes benefits), the golf cart fringe including: a body ((20), paragraph [0021], made from polyethylene netting or the like); a first stretch layer (portion included within stitching (22)), wherein the first stretch layer includes: an elastic material (paragraph [0022], (24) is a stretch cord); and a portion of the body surrounding the elastic material (Fig. 2 shows a portion of the body surrounding (24) within stitching (22)); and a second stretch layer (portion included within stitching (22)), wherein the second stretch layer: includes: an elastic material (paragraph [0022], (24) is a stretch cord); and a portion of the body surrounding the elastic material (Fig. 2 shows a portion of the body surrounding (24) within stitching (22)); and is parallel to the first stretch layer (Fig. 2).
Saurman et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the body includes a circular piece of fabric; and one or more folds; the first stretch layer on a top surface of the canopy; the second stretch layer on a bottom surface of the canopy, wherein: the first layer is configured to be placed above an edge of a golf cart canopy; the second layer is configured to be placed below the edge of the golf cart canopy; and the body between the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer rests on an edge of the canopy.
Dang teaches a vehicle fringe (Fig. 1, col. 1, lines 10-11, col 4, lines 64-67, (20), suitable for a vehicle (10) having a roof portion (12), a golf cart has a roof portion), the vehicle fringe comprising: a body (22), the body includes a circular piece of fabric (As best understood with respect to the 112b rejection, the body includes a fabric piece that is connected to form a continuous piece of fabric, see Figs. 1 and 3, which includes an opening of sufficient size to substantially expose the roof of the vehicle (col.3, lines 44-47), and one or more folds (Figs. 4 and 8, col. 7, lines 5-9 teaches folds in the body, show that the folds in the body allow for the expansion of the body to fit around the canopy of the vehicle); the first stretch layer on a top surface of the canopy (Fig. 1); the second stretch layer on a surface below the canopy, wherein the body between the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer rests on an edge of the canopy (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart of Saurman et al. to provide a circular piece of fabric for the body to rest on an edge of the canopy as taught by Dang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid the need of the hooks of Saurman et al. to connect the two ends of the body, and with less components, the device is easier to manufacture and reduces the chances of a component breaking down. Additionally, the one or more folds in the body allow for the expansion of the body when stretched. Please note in the claim as written, the one or more folds are not required to remain while in use. The one or more folds in the body allow for the expansion of the body when stretched over the entirety of the edge of the canopy. Also note the vehicle is the golf cart as taught by Saurman et al.
Regarding claim 18, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart of claim 17, and teaches (references to Saurman et al.) wherein the body extends only to an edge of the second stretch layer along a portion of a circumference of the body (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart of claim 17, and teaches (references to Saurman et al.) wherein the body extends only to an edge of the first stretch layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart of claim 17, and teaches (references to Dang) wherein the body covers only a portion of the top surface of the canopy (Fig. 1).
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurman et al. (US 2008/0164713) in view of Dang (US 5456515) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Club Car (https://www.amazon.com/Club-Precedent-Black-Canopy-102508903/dp/B07ZBJ3V1S, October 2019).
Regarding claim 3, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 2, and teaches wherein the body is of a polyethylene material (Saurman et al.: paragraph [0021], polyethylene is known as an elastic material that stretches easily) and includes an opening of sufficient size to substantially expose the roof of the vehicle (Dang: col.3, lines 44-47). However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the circular piece of fabric is between 100 inches and 160 inches long when the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer are in a resting state.
Club Car teaches an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) golf cart roof/canopy (Figures), wherein the dimensions are 60 inches by 48 inches by 6 inches, 216 inches in total.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. as modified by Dang to have a length, in a resting state, that would be less than the total edge length of a cart as taught by Club Car, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to stretch to a length that would not be too loose in the stretched length so that the length can be enough to allow for a snug fit along the edge of the golf cart roof. Further, it has been 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Here, the material allows for the stretching over the length of the golf cart roof, therefore, would not be patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 4, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 3. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car does not explicitly teach wherein the circular piece of fabric is approximately 130 inches long when the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer are in the resting state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car to have a length, in a resting state, that would be less than the total edge length of a cart as taught by Club Car, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to stretch to a length that would not be too loose in the stretched length so that the length can be enough to allow for a snug fit along the edge of the golf cart roof. Further, it has been 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Here, the material allows for the stretching over the length of the golf cart roof, therefore, would not be patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 5, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 4. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car does not explicitly teach wherein the circular piece of fabric is between 155 inches and 235 inches long when the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer are in a fully stretched state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car to have a length, in a fully stretched state, that would be at least the total edge length of a cart as taught by Club Car, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to stretch to a length that would not be too loose in the stretched length so that the length can be enough to allow for a snug fit along the edge of the golf cart roof. Further, it has been 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Here, the material allows for the stretching over the length of the golf cart roof, therefore, would not be patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 6, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 5. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car does not explicitly teach wherein the circular piece of fabric is approximately 195 inches long when the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer are in the fully stretched state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. as modified by Dang and Club Car to have a length, in a fully stretched state, that would be at least around the total edge length of a cart as taught by Club Car, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to stretch to a length that would not be too loose in the stretched length so that the length can be enough to allow for a snug fit along the edge of the golf cart roof. Further, it has been 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Here, the material allows for the stretching over the length of the golf cart roof, therefore, would not be patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 7, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 2, and teaches wherein the body is of a polyethylene material (Saurman et al.: paragraph [0021], polyethylene is known as an elastic material that stretches easily) and includes an opening of sufficient size to substantially expose the roof of the vehicle (Dang: col.3, lines 44-47). However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the circular piece of fabric is: approximately 165 inches long when the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer are in their resting state and approximately 250 inches long when the first stretch layer and the second stretch layer are in their fully stretched state.
Club Car teaches an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) golf cart roof/canopy (Figures), wherein the dimensions are 60 inches by 48 inches by 6 inches, 216 inches in total.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. as modified by Dang to have a length, in a resting state, that would be less than the total edge length of a cart, and a fully stretched state that would be more than the total edge length of a cart as taught by Club Car, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to be able to stretch to a length that would not be too loose in the stretched length so that the length can be enough to allow for a snug fit along the edge of the golf cart roof. Further, it has been 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Here, the material allows for the stretching over the length of the golf cart roof, therefore, would not be patentably distinct.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurman et al. (US 2008/0164713) in view of Dang (US 5456515) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chai et al. (US 6357461).
Regarding claim 9, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 1. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the elastic material of the first stretch layer includes a natural rubber.
Chai et al. teaches a sunshade (1) for vehicles, wherein the elastic material of the first stretch layer (26) includes a natural rubber (col. 5, lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. modified by Dang to include a natural rubber as the elastic material as taught by Chai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a material that allows for elasticity while still able to endure weather and elements.
Regarding claim 10, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 1. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the elastic material of the first stretch layer includes a synthetic rubber.
Chai et al. teaches a sunshade (1) for vehicles, wherein the elastic material of the first stretch layer (26) includes a synthetic rubber (col. 5, lines 58-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. as modified by Dang to include a synthetic rubber as the elastic material as taught by Chai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a material that allows for elasticity while still able to endure weather and elements.
Regarding claim 11, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 1. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the elastic material of the first stretch layer includes an elastomer.
Chai et al. teaches a sunshade (1) for vehicles, wherein the elastic material of the first stretch layer (26) includes an elastomer (col. 5, lines 58-61, natural rubber is an example of an elastomer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. as modified by Dang to include an elastomer as the elastic material as taught by Chai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a material that allows for elasticity while still able to endure weather and elements.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saurman et al. (US 2008/0164713) in view of Dang (US 5456515) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 2006/0005618).
Regarding claim 15, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 12. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach the golf cart fringe further comprising: one or more tassels extending from the body.
Thomas teaches a golf cart accessory that includes one or more tassels (10) extending from a body (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. modified by Dang to include one or more tassels extending from the body as taught by Thomas, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a wind vane for golfers and to add a touch of decoration to the golf cart fringe.
Regarding claim 16, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang teaches the golf cart fringe of claim 12. However, Saurman et al. as modified by Dang does not explicitly teach the golf cart fringe further comprising: one or more ribbons extending from the body.
Thomas teaches a golf cart accessory that includes one or more tassels ((26a), (26b), (26c)) extending from a body (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the golf cart fringe of Saurman et al. modified by Dang to include one or more ribbons extending from the body as taught by Thomas, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a wind vane for golfers and to add a touch of decoration to the golf cart fringe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objection has been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to claims 12 and 17 in regards to the “folds” limitation. However, to help with compact prosecution, the rejections above have been expanded to provide further details as to how the prior art teaches the “folds” of each claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate 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, Peter M 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.
/C.W.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643