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 § 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said section strap" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said section strap" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keane, U.S. Patent 6,076,668.
Regarding Claim 1, Keane teaches:
a first housing (44), said first housing having an internal cavity (see below)
positioned between a first sidewall (see below), a second sidewall (see below) and a surrounding sidewall (44) positioned between said first sidewall and said second sidewall;
said first housing having a bag connector (24) for forming an engagement of said first housing to a golf bag;
a reel (46) located within said internal cavity;
an opening (30) in said first housing communicating with said internal cavity;
a flexible member (22) engaged at a first end with said reel, said flexible member extending through said opening to a second end thereof;
a clip (26) in a connection to said second end of said flexible member, said clip for positioning to a removable engagement to a golf club cover;
said reel in a biased engagement (58) urging said reel to wind said flexible member thereon; and
whereby with said first housing in said engagement to said golf bag, a said golf cover in said removable engagement to said clip, is held proximate to said golf bag (Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Keane teaches:
Wherein said opening communicates through said surrounding sidewall (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Keane teaches:
A first housing connector (see above) positioned upon said first sidewall;
said first housing connector being removably engageable (via 47) with a second housing
connector (see above) positioned upon a second housing (see above); and
said second housing having a second flexible member (see above) engaged at a first end thereof with a secondary reel (see above) within an internal cavity (see above) of said secondary housing, said second flexible member extending through a second opening (see above) in said secondary housing to a second clip (see above) at a second end thereof
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that there are three separate housings each containing a reel, cavity, opening, flexible member, and clip. Each housing further comprises a first housing connector and a second housing connector. Examiner further notes that Examiner interprets the prior art teachings two bearing elements two maintain shaft 47 and these are the first and second housing connectors. The first housing connector is not interpreted to be a sleeve for elements 52 because elements 56 clearly receive fasteners 52 which are countersunk and therefore maintained at the top surface. Furthermore, the section or partial views of Fig. 8 do not show any other sleeves extending from element 40.
Regarding Claim 6, the text of this claim is identical to that of Claim 5 and is therefore rejected as it depends from rejected Claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris, U.S. Patent 3,015,351.
a first housing (11), said first housing having an internal cavity (46)
positioned between a first sidewall (36), a second sidewall (36) and a surrounding sidewall (30, 32-33) positioned between said first sidewall and said second sidewall;
said first housing having a bag connector (38) for forming an engagement of said first housing to a golf bag;
a reel (27) located within said internal cavity;
an opening (42) in said first housing communicating with said internal cavity;
a flexible member (49) engaged at a first end with said reel, said flexible member extending through said opening to a second end thereof;
a clip (52) in a connection to said second end of said flexible member, said clip for positioning to a removable engagement to a golf club cover;
said reel in a biased engagement (47) urging said reel to wind said flexible member thereon; and
whereby with said first housing in said engagement to said golf bag, a said golf cover in said removable engagement to said clip, is held proximate to said golf bag (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, see Fig. 3, elements 42, 49.
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) 3-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keane as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-6 above, and further in view of Shioda, U.S. Patent 5,676,247.
Regarding Claim 3, Keane teaches:
A strap attached to the housings with fasteners at ends therefore (see fig. 7).
Keane does not teach:
A first strap having hook and loop fabric thereon, said first strap engaged at a first end
thereof to said first housing; and
a second strap having mating hook and loop fabric thereon, said section strap engaged at a second end thereof to said first housing.
Shioda teaches:
A first strap (62) having hook and loop fabric thereon (see 54, see Col 5, Lns 6-21), said
first strap engaged at a first end thereof to an object (Fig. 10); and
a second strap (62) having mating hook and loop fabric thereon (see 54, see Col 5, Lns 6-21), said section strap engaged at a second end thereof to said first housing (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Keane with hook-and-loop fabric as taught by Shioda because this would allow a user to easily adjust the tightness of the strap and the clasp of Keane is clearly a known equivalent as demonstrated by Shioda.
Regarding Claim 4, the text of this claim is identical to that of Claim 3 and is therefore rejected as it depends from rejected Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7, the text of this claim is identical to that of Claim 5 and is therefore rejected as it depends from rejected Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 8, the text of this claim is identical to that of Claim 5 and is therefore rejected as it depends from rejected Claim 4.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Shioda, U.S. Patent 5,676,247.
Regarding Claim 3, Harris is silent with regard to these limitations.
Shioda teaches:
A first strap (62) having hook and loop fabric thereon (see 54, see Col 5, Lns 6-21), said
first strap engaged at a first end thereof to an object (Fig. 10); and
a second strap (62) having mating hook and loop fabric thereon (see 54, see Col 5, Lns 6-21), said section strap engaged at a second end thereof to said first housing (Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Keane with hook-and-loop fabric as taught by Shioda because this would allow a user to easily adjust the tightness of the strap and the clasp of Keane is clearly a known equivalent as demonstrated by Shioda.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Caufield, U.S. Patent 5,025,843.
Harris is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim, but does teach first and second clips (26, 28).
Caufield teaches:
A removable engagement formed by a positioning between a circular first clip contact on a first side of the clip surrounding a circular second clip contact on an opposite side of the clip (see 12, 14, 34, 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris with the teachings of Caufield because that would permit disengagement of the golf cover from the flexible member if so desired.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris-Shioda as applied to claims 3 above, and further in view of Caufield, U.S. Patent 5,025,843.
Harris is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim, but does teach first and second clips (26, 28).
Caufield teaches:
A removable engagement formed by a positioning between a circular first clip contact on a first side of the clip surrounding a circular second clip contact on an opposite side of the clip (see 12, 14, 34, 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris with the teachings of Caufield because that would permit disengagement of the golf cover from the flexible member if so desired.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris-Shioda as applied to claims 3-4 above, and further in view of Smith, U.S. Patent 4,713,497.
Regarding Claim 5, Harris, in the instant combination, teaches:
A second reel within an internal cavity of a housing and second flexible member extending through a second opening to a second clip at a second end (see Fig. 2 in light of rejection of Claim 1 above).
Harris does not teach:
A first housing connector on a first sidewall, a second housing connector positioned upon a second housing.
Smith teaches a modular reel device comprising:
A first housing connector (15, 19) on a first sidewall of a first housing (10), a second housing connector positioned upon a second housing (10’, see fig. 3).
At the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Harris-Shioda in a modular format with the first and second housings and first and second housing connectors as taught by Smith because that would permit a user to choose the appropriate size of the apparatus depending on how many golf club covers are present in the user’s bag.
Regarding Claim 6, the text of this claim is identical to that of Claim 5 and is therefore rejected as it depends from rejected Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7, the text of this claim is identical to that of Claim 5 and is therefore rejected as it depends from rejected Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 8, the text of this claim is identical to that of Claim 5 and is therefore rejected as it depends from rejected Claim 4.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris-Shioda-Smith as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Caufield, U.S. Patent 5,025,843.
Harris is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim, but does teach first and second clips (26, 28).
Caufield teaches:
A removable engagement formed by a positioning between a circular first clip contact on a first side of the clip surrounding a circular second clip contact on an opposite side of the clip (see 12, 14, 34, 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris with the teachings of Caufield because that would permit disengagement of the golf cover from the flexible member if so desired.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris-Shioda-Smith as applied to claims 5-8 above, and further in view of Smith, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0209369.
Regarding Claim 9, the instant combination does not teach the first housing connector being a second and the second housing connector being magnetically attractive.
Smith teaches two housings (see below), a magnet (83) and a magnetically attractive surface (21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the housing connectors as made a magnet and magnetically attractive connector because that would permit easy assembly of the modules without the need for tools.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris-Shioda-Smith-Smith as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Caufield, U.S. Patent 5,025,843.
Harris is silent with regard to the limitations of this claim, but does teach first and second clips (26, 28).
Caufield teaches:
A removable engagement formed by a positioning between a circular first clip contact on a first side of the clip surrounding a circular second clip contact on an opposite side of the clip (see 12, 14, 34, 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Harris with the teachings of Caufield because that would permit disengagement of the golf cover from the flexible member if so desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677