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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 14-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassoni (US 20080135591 A1) in view of Sung (US 10752275 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Cassoni discloses a caddy system (support 10 and hitch frame 50, figs.1-12) for a golf vehicle (golf car 1), the caddy system comprising: a caddy (support 10) including: a frame (legs that support wheels 15); a plurality of tractive elements (wheels 15) coupled to the frame; and a carriage (bag support 11) configured to receive and support a golf bag (golf bag 20), the carriage pivotably coupled to the frame (bag support 11 is pivotably coupled to the legs supporting the wheels 15 as seen in figures 2-5) and lower end of the caddy is raised to be received by the golf vehicle (fig.5). Cassoni fails to disclose the carriage pivotably coupled to the frame such that the lower end can be pivoted to a raised position.
However, Sung discloses a cart (10) with a frame (20), tractive elements (wheels 221 and 251), a carriage (supporting frame 30) pivotably coupled to the frame (figs.1-6) such that a lower end can be pivoted to a raised position (fig.6).
Cassoni and Sung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cassoni with the pivoting support frame of Sung with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of easier unloading of golf clubs into the back of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses wherein the caddy includes a first interface (hitch tube 16 and upper hitch jaw 13) configured to releasably couple to a second interface (hitch jaw 53 and hitch tubes 51 and 52) of the golf vehicle to releasably couple the caddy to the golf vehicle when the caddy is received and supported by the golf vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses further comprising a user interface (upper hitch jaw handle 14) configured to facilitate disengaging the first interface from the second interface (upper hitch jaw handle 14 release contact between the upper hitch jaw 13 and the upper hitch tubes 51 and 52).
Regarding claim 4, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses wherein the user interface is located on the caddy (upper hitch jaw handle 14, fig.3).
Regarding claim 6, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses further comprising a well (bag bay 5) configured to be coupled to the golf vehicle, wherein the well is configured to receive the lower end of the caddy (bag bay receives the hitch frame 50 which holds the lower end of the carrier 10), wherein the lower end of the caddy includes the first interface (hitch tube 16), and wherein the well includes the second interface (hitch jaw 53).
Regarding claim 7, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses further comprising a retainer assembly (upper hitch jaws 13 and upper hitch tubes 51 and 52, figs.2-6) configured to be coupled to the golf vehicle, wherein the retainer assembly is configured to engage with an upper end of the caddy, wherein the upper end of the caddy includes the first interface, and wherein the retainer assembly includes the second interface (upper hitch jaws 13 and upper hitch tubes 51 and 52, figs.2-6).
Regarding claim 9, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Sung discloses wherein the caddy includes a locking mechanism (locking member 32) configured to facilitate selectively preventing the carriage (30) from being pivoted relative to the frame (20).
Regarding claim 10, Cassoni in combination with Sung discloses wherein the caddy includes a handle assembly (Cassoni, handle 21; Sung, push handle 36, fig.2) coupled to the carriage, the handle assembly including: an extension portion slidably coupled to the carriage (Sung, push handle 36 has extension portion slidably received by supporting frame 30, fig.2, column 4, lines 44-50); and a handle coupled to the extension portion (Sung, push handle 36, fig.2), wherein the extension portion is configured to slide relative to the carriage to move the handle between an extended position and a retracted position (Sung, push handle 36 slides relative to frame 30, column 4, lines 44-50, fig.2).
Regarding claim 14, Cassoni discloses a caddy system (support 10 and hitch frame 50, figs.1-12) for a golf vehicle (golf car 1), the caddy system comprising: a well (bag bay 5) configured to be coupled to the golf vehicle, a caddy (support 10) including: a frame (legs that support wheels 15); a plurality of tractive elements (wheels 15) coupled to the frame; and a carriage (bag support 11) configured to receive and support a golf bag (golf bag 20), the carriage pivotably coupled to the frame (bag support 11 is pivotably coupled to the legs supporting the wheels 15 as seen in figures 2-5) and lower end of the caddy is raised to be received by the golf vehicle (fig.5). Cassoni fails to disclose the carriage pivotably coupled to the frame such that the lower end can be pivoted to a raised position.
However, Sung discloses a cart (10) with a frame (20), tractive elements (wheels 221 and 251), a carriage (supporting frame 30) pivotably coupled to the frame (figs.1-6) such that a lower end can be pivoted to a raised position (fig.6).
Cassoni and Sung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cassoni with the pivoting support frame of Sung with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of easier unloading of golf clubs into the back of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses wherein the well includes a first interface (bag bay 5 receives the hitch frame 50 with hitch jaw 53 and hitch tubes 51 and 52), and wherein the caddy includes a second interface (hitch tube 16 and upper hitch jaw 13) configured to releasably couple to the first interface to releasably couple the caddy to well when the lower end of the caddy is received and supported by the well, further comprising a user interface (upper hitch jaw handle 14) configured to facilitate disengaging the first interface from the second interface (upper hitch jaw handle 14 release contact between the upper hitch jaw 13 and the upper hitch tubes 51 and 52).
Regarding claim 16, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses further comprising: a retainer assembly (upper hitch jaws 13 and upper hitch tubes 51 and 52, figs.2-6) configured to be coupled to the golf vehicle, wherein the retainer assembly is configured to engage with an upper end of the caddy, wherein the retainer assembly includes a first interface (upper hitch tubes 51 and 52), and wherein the upper end of the caddy includes a second interface (upper hitch jaws 13) configured to releasably couple to the first interface to releasably couple the caddy to retainer assembly when the lower end of the caddy is received and supported by the well; and a user interface (upper hitch jaw handle 14 release contact between the upper hitch jaw 13 and the upper hitch tubes 51 and 52) configured to facilitate disengaging the first interface from the second interface.
Regarding claim 18, Cassoni discloses a caddy system (support 10 and hitch frame 50, figs.1-12) for a golf vehicle (golf car 1), the caddy system comprising: a well (bag bay 5) configured to be coupled to the golf vehicle, a retainer assembly (upper hitch jaw 13 and upper hitch tubes 51 and 52) configured to be coupled to the golf vehicle above the well, at least one of the well or the retainer assembly including a first interface (upper hitch tubes 51 and 52); a caddy (support 10) including: a frame (legs that support wheels 15); a plurality of tractive elements (wheels 15) coupled to the frame; and a carriage (bag support 11) configured to receive and support a golf bag (golf bag 20), the carriage pivotably coupled to the frame (bag support 11 is pivotably coupled to the legs supporting the wheels 15 as seen in figures 2-5) and lower end of the caddy is raised to be received by the golf vehicle (fig.5); ; and a second interface (upper hitch jaw 13 and lower hitch tube 16) configured to releasably couple to the first interface when the lower end of the caddy is received and supported by the well. Cassoni fails to disclose the carriage pivotably coupled to the frame such that the lower end can be pivoted to a raised position.
However, Sung discloses a cart (10) with a frame (20), tractive elements (wheels 221 and 251), a carriage (supporting frame 30) pivotably coupled to the frame (figs.1-6) such that a lower end can be pivoted to a raised position (fig.6).
Cassoni and Sung are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cassoni with the pivoting support frame of Sung with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of easier unloading of golf clubs into the back of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses further comprising a user interface (upper hitch jaw handle 14) configured to facilitate disengaging the first interface from the second interface (upper hitch jaw handle 14 release contact between the upper hitch jaw 13 and the upper hitch tubes 51 and 52).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassoni (US 20080135591 A1) in view of Sung (US 10752275 B1), and in further view of In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Cassoni in combination with Sung, Cassoni discloses wherein the user interface is located on the caddy (upper hitch jaw handle 14, fig.3), not configured to be located on the golf vehicle. However, it would be a mere reversal of parts and would be an obvious modification as disclosed by In re Gazda.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11-13, 17 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 depends from claim 2 which is rejected, but claim 8 has the limitation of “wherein the caddy includes a battery configured to store electrical energy and provide the electrical energy to components of the caddy, wherein the first interface is electrically coupled to the battery, and wherein the first interface is configured to electrically couple to the second interface to receive electrical energy from energy storage of the golf vehicle to charge the battery.” The primary reference of Cassoni discloses the first and second interfaces being mechanical connections (lower hitch tubes 16, lower hitch jaws 53, upper hitch tubes 51 and 52, upper hitch jaws 13). Cassoni fails to disclose the caddy having a battery, however batteries in golf caddies are well known in the art for driving wheels and powering electronic devices as seen in Andreae (US 6276470 B1), Cotton (US 5232065 A), Gal (US 20080196951 A1), and Thompson (WO 2018087569 A1). None of the prior art discloses “wherein the first interface is electrically coupled to the battery, and wherein the first interface is configured to electrically couple to the second interface to receive electrical energy from energy storage of the golf vehicle to charge the battery.” The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 8. For the reasons above claim 8 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 11 depends upon claim 1 which is rejected, but claim 11 has the limitation of “wherein the frame comprises: a first frame portion; a second frame portion pivotably coupled to the first frame portion; and a third frame portion pivotably coupled to the first frame portion and slidably coupled to the second frame portion, the third frame portion configured to slide along at least a portion of a length of the second frame portion.” Cassoni discloses wherein the frame comprises: a first frame portion (brackets that hold wheel legs, figs.2-5); a second frame portion (one of the legs on bracket hod wheel 15, figs.2-5) pivotably coupled to the first frame portion; and a third frame portion (the other of the legs on bracket hold wheel 15, figs.2-5) pivotably coupled to the first frame portion. Cassoni fails to disclose the third frame portion slidably coupled to the second frame portion, the third frame portion configured to slide along at least a portion of a length of the second frame portion. Sung discloses a first frame portion, a second frame portion, and a third frame portion (frame 20 with beams 22-27, fig.2) but fails to disclose the frame portions being pivotal or slidable. The teaching reference of Sung fails to cure the deficiency of Cassoni. It would be unreasonable to modify the frame portion of either Cassoni or Sung to have all of the limitations of claim 11 without hindsight reconstruction. For the reasons above claim 11 has allowable subject matter.
Claims 12-13 depend upon claim 1 and contain the same allowable subject matter as discussed above.
Claim 17 depends upon claim 14 which is rejected, but claim 17 has the limitation of “wherein the frame includes: a first frame portion; a second frame portion pivotably coupled to a first end of the first frame portion; and a third frame portion pivotably coupled to a second opposing end of the first frame portion and slidably coupled to the second frame portion, the third frame portion configured to slide along at least a portion of a length of the second frame portion; wherein when the frame is moved from an expanded configuration to a collapsed configuration, the third frame portion slides along the second frame portion towards the first end of the first frame portion.” Cassoni discloses wherein the frame comprises: a first frame portion (brackets that hold wheel legs, figs.2-5); a second frame portion (one of the legs on bracket hod wheel 15, figs.2-5) pivotably coupled to the first frame portion; and a third frame portion (the other of the legs on bracket hold wheel 15, figs.2-5) pivotably coupled to the first frame portion. Cassoni fails to disclose the third frame portion slidably coupled to the second frame portion, the third frame portion configured to slide along at least a portion of a length of the second frame portion. Sung discloses a first frame portion, a second frame portion, and a third frame portion (frame 20 with beams 22-27, fig.2) but fails to disclose the frame portions being pivotal or slidable. The teaching reference of Sung fails to cure the deficiency of Cassoni. It would be unreasonable to modify the frame portion of either Cassoni or Sung to have all of the limitations of claim 17 without hindsight reconstruction. For the reasons above claim 17 has allowable subject matter.
Claim 20 depends upon claim 18 which is rejected but claim 20 has the limitation of “wherein the caddy includes a battery configured to store electrical energy and provide the electrical energy to components of the caddy, wherein the second interface is electrically coupled to the battery, and wherein the second interface is configured to electrically couple to the first interface to receive electrical energy from energy storage of the golf vehicle to charge the battery.” The primary reference of Cassoni discloses the first and second interfaces being mechanical connections (lower hitch tubes 16, lower hitch jaws 53, upper hitch tubes 51 and 52, upper hitch jaws 13). Cassoni fails to disclose the caddy having a battery, however batteries in golf caddies are well known in the art for driving wheels and powering electronic devices as seen in Andreae (US 6276470 B1), Cotton (US 5232065 A), Gal (US 20080196951 A1), and Thompson (WO 2018087569 A1). None of the prior art discloses “wherein the first interface is electrically coupled to the battery, and wherein the first interface is configured to electrically couple to the second interface to receive electrical energy from energy storage of the golf vehicle to charge the battery.” The prior art either alone or in combination fail to teach or fairly suggest at this time all of the limitations of claim 20. For the reasons above claim 20 has allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art not relied upon but considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure is included in the 892 form. The art included has features related to claim limitations, the general structural of the invention, teachings, and other analogous art to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights