US 5417354

Patent Overview — US 5,417,354 A

Title: Universal carrier for fully rigged fishing poles

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5417354/en

Patent number: US5417354A (application US08/019,156)

Inventor: James C. Jones

Assignee: None named — listed as Individual (original and current assignee both "Individual")

Dates (as stated, assumptions only): Priority/filing date 1993-02-17; publication/grant 1995-05-23; anticipated expiration 2013-02-17. Legal status listed as "Expired - Fee Related."

Purpose: The carrier is intended to let a person carry and store a plurality of fishing rods of varying styles and lengths while their reels, lines, and terminal tackle remain attached, so the angler can "arrive" and "leave" ready to fish. The text states it "also may be adapted for use in carrying and storing other elongated objects, especially hunting rifles and shotguns." A stated design goal is a carrier that is small, compact, and multifunctional, since space is at a premium on a bank, boat, trail, or in a garage; most prior-art carriers reportedly take up more space than the poles they carry.

Plain-language scope (from the excerpt): The disclosed subject matter concerns a carrier with a receptacle and elongated sleeve/pouch structure, with prior-art keywords given as "receptacle," "elongated," "sleeve," "bag," and "pouch." Classifications include A01K97/08 (Containers for rods), A45F3/02, A45F5/00, A63C11/023 (Carrying-devices), plus cross-reference art collections Y10S224/922 (Fishing rod holder) and Y10S224/917 (Ski carrier). The excerpt criticizes prior-art carriers (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 4,726,141 to McBride et al. and U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,662,933 and 4,523,704) as not accommodating fully rigged poles—risking tangles, snags, hook injury—or as too large, rigid, and cumbersome to portage; it also notes long rod handles (sometimes two feet) as a sizing problem.

What the excerpt does not establish: It supplies no claim text, no abstract wording, no detailed description of the internal structure or dimensions, and no working examples beyond the design goals and criticisms above. It does not confirm inventorship beyond the named inventor, does not establish any assignment, litigation, ownership transfer, or validity, and does not state whether the carrier actually achieves the described advantages.