This is a Non-Final office action for serial number 19/073,852
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the slot for golf pencil and slot for golf pencil must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because drawings show openings not a slot for the golf pencil or tee. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David, Sr. (David) 2014/0135142 in view of Butler 20240285109. The applicant is reminded that the golf bag, golf bag compartment, golf bag legs, drink can are not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the golf bag, golf bag compartment, golf bag legs, and drink can.
David discloses claims:
Claim 1. A cupholder and phone mounting system for use in a golf bag comprising a golf club compartment and golf bag legs, the system comprising: a shaft sub-assembly comprising a rigid rod (15) configured to be removably installed into the golf club compartment alongside clubs in that golf bag; and a cupholder part comprising:(i) a cupholder comprising a opening (opening within 53) configured to hold a camera phone at an angle configured to permit recording of a golf shot while the rigid rod of the shaft sub-assembly is inserted into the golf club compartment of the golf bag and the golf bag is stood on the golf bag legs; and (ii) a fastener slot (opening disclosed within paragraph 0025) configured to permit the cupholder to connect directly to the shaft sub-assembly, forming an angle between the cupholder and the shaft sub-assembly when connected such that the cupholder remains approximately vertical while the rigid rod of the shaft sub-assembly is inserted into the golf club compartment of the golf bag and the golf bag is stood on the golf bag legs.
Claim 5. The system of Claim 1, wherein the cupholder is configured to hold at least one of a standard-size drink can and a slim-size drink can.
Claim 6. The system of Claim 5, wherein the cupholder comprises features of a size configured to hold each of a standard-size drink can and a slim-size drink can.
Claim 9. The system of Claim 1, further comprising a mounting bracket within the fastener slot.
[AltContent: textbox (rod)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slot /opening
With mounting bracket)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cup holder 53)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (slot)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
794
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
David discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the cupholder comprising a slot.
Butler teaches it is known to have
Claim 1. a cupholder comprising a slot (113) configured to hold a camera phone at an angle configured to permit recording of a golf shot.
Claim 3. The system of Claim 1, wherein the cupholder comprises a plastic cupholder.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (slot)]
PNG
media_image2.png
416
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
340
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified David to have a cupholder comprising a slot and comprising a plastic cupholder as taught by Butler for the purpose of providing a means for supporting both a can, cup, bottle or camera phone.
David in view of Butler discloses the claimed invention except for the cupholder is 3D printed, molded with polyurethane resin, injection molded, or machined.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time (Claim 4) the invention was made to the cupholder is 3D printed, molded with polyurethane resin, injection molded, or machined, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected, as best undersoot, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David, Sr. (David) 2014/0135142 in view of Butler 20240285109 in view of Larkin 4730728.
David in view of Butler discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for cupholder further comprises at least one slot configured to hold a golf pencil or a golf tee and both a slot configured to hold a golf pencil and a slot configured to hold a golf tee.
Larkin teaches it is known to have claims:
Claim 7. The system of Claim 1, wherein the holder further comprises at least one slot configured to hold a golf pencil or a golf tee.
Claim 8. The system of Claim 7, wherein the holder comprises both a slot configured to hold a golf pencil and a slot configured to hold a golf tee.
[AltContent: textbox (Slot/opening/hole for golf pencil
Slot/opening/hole for golf tee)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
266
262
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David, Sr. (David) 2014/0135142 in view of Butler 20240285109 in view of Rivera 6,371,866.
David in view of Butler discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the rigid rod comprises a plurality of aluminum rods assembled together using threading and set screws.
Rivera teaches it is known to have claim:
Claim 2. The system of Claim 1, wherein the rigid rod comprises a plurality of aluminum rods (conventional to be aluminum rods) assembled together using threading and set screws (24, 44, 52,32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified David in view of Butler to have the rigid rod comprises a plurality of aluminum rods assembled together using threading and set screws as taught by Rivera to provide a strong, stable, adjustable, detachable and convertible device for easy transport.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses conventional camera device and cup holders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights