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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s claims filed 3/28/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should depend on claim 11 to have proper dependency of the limitation “centering holder”. 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 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, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 13-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smigaj et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0230911).
Regarding claim 1, Smigaj discloses:
A fishing equipment carrier comprising: a rod housing (see fig 3), comprising: a first portion having a first slot (see figs 3 and 11, the instance of 22 located closest to the reels), a second portion having a second slot (see figs 3 and 11, the third instance of 22), and a coupling portion having a third slot (see figs 3 and 11, the second instance of 22 connecting the first to the third instance), wherein at least a portion of the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are longitudinally aligned (see fig 11).
Regarding claim 2, Smigaj discloses members likely manufactured via extrusion, however, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 1, further comprising a mounting foot (see at least fig 3, ref 36) configured to be coupled to the rod housing and slidably disposed within the first slot and the second slot (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 5, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 4, wherein the mounting foot comprises a mounting portion disposed in at least one of the first, second and third slots, and a vehicle engaging portion configuring to couple with a roof rack on a vehicle (see at least fig 5 and paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 6, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 5, wherein the mounting portion comprises a shaft and a flange, and wherein the shaft has a narrower width than the first, second, and third slots, and the flange has a wider width than the first, second, and third slots (see at least fig 5 and paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 8, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 1, wherein the third slot is disposed between the first slot and the second slot (see fig 11).
Regarding claim 9, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 1, wherein the third slot is formed between a first terminating end and a second terminating end of the coupling portion (see fig 5 – each side of the slot is a terminating end of the respective side of the bottom of the carrier).
Regarding claim 10, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 1, wherein the first slot is disposed between a first rod holder and a second rod holder (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 13, Smigaj discloses:
A fishing equipment carrier comprising: a rod housing configured to house a fishing rod within the rod housing, the rod housing comprising a plurality of slots (see figs 3, 5, and 11); and a mounting foot (36) configured to couple the rod housing to a vehicle, the mounting foot comprising an attachment member configured to be slidably disposed within at least one of the plurality of slots (see fig 5 and paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 14, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 13, wherein the rod housing comprises a first portion (see fig 3, the first instance of 22 closest to the reels), a second portion (the third instance of 22), and a coupling portion (the second instance of 22) configured to couple the first portion with the second portion.
Regarding claim 15, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 14, wherein the plurality of slots comprises a first slot formed in the first portion, a second slot formed in the second portion, and a third slot formed in the coupling portion (see fig 11).
Regarding claim 17, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 15, wherein the first portion comprises a first rod holder and a second rod holder, and wherein the first slot is disposed between the first and send rod holder (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 18, Smigaj discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 13, wherein the plurality of slots are longitudinally aligned (see fig 11).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smigaj et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0230911) in view of Kuschmeader et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0238918).
Regarding claim 7, Smigaj discloses the carrier of claim 5, but does not disclose: wherein the vehicle engaging portion comprises a strap configured to extend around a vehicle accessory, and a fastening mechanism configured to tighten the strap on the vehicle accessory. Kuschmeader teaches a similar device wherein the vehicle engaging portion comprises a strap configured to extend around a vehicle accessory, and a fastening mechanism configured to tighten the strap on the vehicle accessory (see fig 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the strap of Kuschmeader with the device of Smigaj yielding the predictable result of providing a securing system that can accommodate a variety of shapes and sizes of crossbars for mounting.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, Smigaj as modified discloses:
The fishing equipment carrier of claim 19, wherein the fastening mechanism comprises a shaft (see fig 1A, the shafts through the end of the strap) and a fastener coupled to the shaft and the strap (see locking lever of fig 1D that engages strap shaft).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11, 12 (once the objection above is corrected), and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm EST.
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 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644