DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 9-21, and 24-26 pending.
In view of the amendments to claims 4 and 6, the previous corresponding claim objections dated 11/24/2025 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/20/2026 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The references listed in the specification appear to be those on the IDS.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: as best understood, the “spring-loaded cord clap” is a spring loaded cord clamp.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9-10, 17, and 20-21, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McBride et al. (US 4726141)(hereinafter McBride).
RE Claim 1: McBride discloses a carrier for fishing rods with or without attached reels and accessories, the carrier comprising:
a flexible panel (10) having an inside layer (11), an outside layer (12), a top edge (top of 10), a first end portion (right end), and a second end portion (left end); and
at least one primary pocket supported by the panel (26, 27), each primary pocket having at least one primary pocket opening (opening that receives fishing rod, best seen in Figs 1 and 3), a tapered V-shaped end opposite the pocket opening (Fig 2), an inside layer (interior of the pocket), an outside layer (exterior of the pocket), and two elongated edges (top near 13 and bottom near 17 as seen in Fig 2),
wherein the two elongated edges are substantially parallel with the top edge in the flexible panel (Fig 2).
RE Claim 21: McBride discloses a carrier for fishing rods with or without attached reels and accessories, the carrier comprising:
a flexible panel (10) having an inside layer (11), an outside layer (12), a top edge (top of 10), a first end portion (right side end), and a second end portion (left side end);
at least one primary pocket (26, 27) supported by the panel (10), each primary pocket having at least one primary pocket opening (opening that receives fishing rod, best seen in Figs 1 and 3),
wherein each primary pocket opening comprises a closure (stitched end near 15), a tapered V-shaped end opposite the pocket opening (Fig 2), an inside layer (interior of the pocket), and an outside layer (exterior of the pocket),
wherein each primary pocket can accommodate one or more fishing rods with or without attached reels (Figs 1 and 3),
wherein each primary pocket and the closure of the at least one primary pocket opening are capable of accommodating fishing rods with or without attached reels of length greater than the length of each primary pocket when each primary pocket is closed (Figs 1, 3).
RE Claim 3: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1, wherein each primary pocket is located between the first end portion and the second end portion of the panel (located between right and left ends)(alternative interpretations include located between top and bottom or front and back).
RE Claim 4: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1, wherein each primary pocket can accommodate one or more fishing rods with or without attached reels (Fig 1).
RE Claim 9: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 3, wherein the openings of adjacent primary pockets are located at opposite ends of the panel (opening at 26 on top end)(opening at 27 on bottom end).
RE Claim 10: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1, further including a closure associated with at least one primary pocket (stitching on end near 16).
RE Claim 17: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1, further including at least one carrying handle (30, 31).
RE Claim 20: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1, wherein the carrier includes a shoulder strap (30, 31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 12-15, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McBride in view of Lannan et al. (US 5327669)(hereinafter Lannan).
RE Claim 2: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1,
wherein the panel can be manufactured to a size appropriate for carrying fishing rods with or without attached reels of having lengths less than, equal to, or greater than the length of each primary pocket (Figs 1, 3).
McBride does not explicitly teach wherein the panel is substantially rectangular in shape when in the unrolled position.
However, Lannan teaches a rod organizer (analogous art) comprising a flexible panel (17) having an inside layer (27), an outside layer (29), a top edge (top), a first end portion (on left side), and a second end portion (on right side) (col 2, ln 18-35); and at least one primary pocket (56) supported by the panel (17), each primary pocket having at least one primary pocket opening (58), a tapered end opposite the pocket opening (truncated triangle shape per col 2, ln 25-30), an inside layer (inside of pocket), and an outside layer (outside of pocket).
Lannan further teaches wherein the panel is substantially rectangular in shape when in the unrolled position (“substantially rectangular in shape” per abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride in view of Lannan such that the panel is substantially rectangular in shape when in the unrolled position as taught by Lannan for the advantages of ease of manufacture.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McBride such that the panel is substantially rectangular in shape when in the unrolled position, 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 MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) citing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). This would be done for the advantages of ease of manufacture.
RE Claim 12: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1.
McBride does not explicitly teach further including one or more accessory pockets.
However, Lannan teaches a rod organizer (analogous art)(see claim 2 above). Lannan further teaches further including one or more accessory pockets (50)(col 3, ln 28-30)(col 2, ln 50-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride in view of Lannan such that the carrier further includes one or more accessory pockets as taught by Lannan for the advantages of protection of gear (McBride col 1, ln 5-25 and Lannan col 3, ln 28-30).
RE Claim 13: McBride as modified discloses the carrier of claim 12.
Lannan further discloses further including a closure associated with at least one accessory pocket of the one or more accessory pockets further including a closure associated with at least one accessory pocket of the one or more accessory pockets (flap on 50, approximately designated by 51; Fig 1).
RE Claim 14: McBride as modified discloses the carrier of claim 12.
With respect to the following limitation: “wherein the closure can be a releasable fastening means comprising hook and loop fabric, spring-loaded cord claps, snaps, buckles, straps, or strings.”
Lannan teaches a closure flap 51 for pocket 50, but does not explicitly teach wherein the closure [of the one or more accessory pockets] is made from hook and loop fabric.
Lannan teaches closures made from hook and loop fasteners (flaps 22, 24 and hook and loops 42, 44 for closure) for other pockets of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride as modified by Lannan such that the closure [of the one or more accessory pockets] is made from hook and loop fabric, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C) citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). This would be done to secure flap 51 to 50 to prevent loss of items stored within accessory pocket 50.
RE Claim 15: McBride as modified discloses the carrier of claim 12.
Lannan further discloses wherein the one or more accessory pockets include an inside and outside layer made of flexible fabric (col 3, ln 20-30).
RE Claim 18: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1.
McBride does not explicitly teach further including at least one binding strap.
However, Lannan teaches a fishing rod organizer (analogous art)(see claim 2). Lannan further teaches further including at least one binding strap (30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride in view of Lannan by incorporating at least one binding strap as taught by Lannan for the advantages of secure retention.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McBride in view of Slack (US 20180042208 A1)(hereinafter Slack).
RE Claim 11: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 10.
McBride does not explicitly teach wherein the closure is a spring-loaded cord clap.
However, Slack teaches a pocket for a fishing rod comprising a closure (analogous art) and further teaches wherein the closure is a spring-loaded cord clap (para 0022, 0024, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride in view of Slack such that the closure is a spring-loaded cord clap as taught by Slack for the advantages of retaining items within the pocket/closure.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McBride in view of Lannan as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Carty (US 6766881 B2)(hereinafter Carty).
RE Claim 16: McBride as modified discloses the carrier of claim 15 as previously discussed.
Lannan discloses layered material (outside layer, inside layer, padding per col 3, ln 20-30).
Lannan does not explicitly teach the padding is foam. However, Carty teaches a protective case with an outer layer and inner layer (analogous art) and further teaches further including one or more foam layers (col 2, ln 40-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride as modified by Lannan in view of Carty such that the one or more accessory pockets contain at least one foam layer between the inside and outside layers as taught by Carty for the advantages of protecting objects held within the carrier from damage.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McBride in view of Lannan as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Pitts (US 10,034,468 B1)(hereinafter Pitts).
RE Claim 19: McBride as modified discloses the carrier of claim 18.
Lannan teaches binding straps 30 fastened to the device. Lannan teaches alternative fastening means including snaps, buckles, straps, strings per col 2, ln 40-43. However, Lannan does not explicitly teach wherein at least one binding strap contains quick-release buckles.
However, Pitts teaches a fishing rod carrier comprising a binding strap (analogous art) and further teaches wherein the at least one binding strap contains quick-release buckles (col 4, ln 25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride as modified by Lannan in view of Pitts such that the at least one binding strap contains quick-release buckles as taught by Pitts for the advantages of adjusting the length of the binding strap.
Claims 24-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McBride as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carty.
RE Claims 24 and 26: McBride discloses the carrier of claims 1 and 21 as previously discussed.
McBride does not explicitly teach further including one or more foam layers, wherein at least one foam layer is located between the inside layers and the outside layers of the panel.
However, Carty teaches a protective case with an outer layer and inner layer (analogous art) and further teaches further including one or more foam layers (col 2, ln 40-45), wherein at least one foam layer is located between the inside layers and the outside layers of the panel (Carty col 2, ln 40-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride in view of Carty by further including one or more foam layers, wherein at least one foam layer is located between the inside layers and the outside layers of the panel as taught by Carty for the advantages of protecting objects held within the carrier from damage.
RE Claim 25: McBride discloses the carrier of claim 1.
McBride does not explicitly teach further including one or more foam layers, wherein at least one foam layer is located between the inside layers and the outside layers of the primary pockets.
However, Carty teaches a protective case with an outer layer and inner layer (analogous art) and further teaches further including one or more foam layers (col 2, ln 40-45), wherein at least one foam layer is located between the inside layers and the outside layers of the primary pockets (Carty col 2, ln 40-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of McBride in view of Carty by further including one or more foam layers, wherein at least one foam layer is located between the inside layers and the outside layers of the primary pockets as taught by Carty for the advantages of protecting objects held within the carrier from damage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various containers and devices for protecting fishing accessories such as fishing rods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644