DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed January 19, 2026 per the request for continued examination filed February 17, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are pending.
Specification
Applicants’ specification is objected to for the use of terminology inconstant with its accepted meaning. Paragraph 0032 of the present specification describes figure 14A and 14B which “depict a schematic diagram of a removable fastener and end caps,” and paragraph 0082 further describes figures14A and 14B where #1410 indicates a cap. However one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a ‘cap’ to function as a cover. “The cap” of figures 14A and 14B includes a through hole and is designed to have a fastener inserted therethrough and as such does not serve to cover or protect and therefore does not have a structure consistent with a cap. Merriam-Webster defines the word “cap” as: 1) a head covering, 2) a natural cover or top, 3) something that serves as a cover or protection especially for a tip, knob, or end, and 4) an overlaying or covering structure. Cap #1410 does not cover or provide protection and therefore is not understood to be a cap. By describing #1410 as a cap the scope of the term cap as intended by applicants is unclear. If a component, which does not cover or protect, is considered to be ‘an end cap’ one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude what other structures may or may not constitute a cap. For example, a cap nut or acorn nut could reasonably be considered an end cap, however under applicants’ use of the term it appears an “end cap” may include retaining pins, e style retaining rings, threaded nuts, washers, internal tooth lock washers, or rings with an interference fit. Clarification of the record is required utilizing terms consistent with their accepted meaning and which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Amendments made to the disclosure should particularly point out where support for can be found in the disclosure as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding applicants’ claims 1 and 16, the removable fastener assembly requires an end cap, however the scope of the term end cap as used in the present claims has been found unclear. Terms within the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, however applicants’ specification draws into question the scope of the term ‘end cap’ as discussed above. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term ‘cap’ is essentially a cover, however applicants’ description of a cap with respect to figure 14 depicts a component which does not cover but instead is designed to allow the fastener to pass through, a function and design inconsistent with the term ‘cap’, particularly when modified by the term ‘end’. If a component which does not cover or protect is considered ‘an end cap’, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude what other structures could be considered a cap. For example, a cap nut or acorn nut could reasonably be considered a cap, however applicants’ use of the term “end cap” could reasonably include retaining pins, e style retaining rings, threaded nuts, washers, internal tooth lock washers, or rings with an interference fit. For the purpose of evaluating the claims with respect to the prior art, the term ‘end cap’ will be considered to include structures beyond its’ accepted meaning including structures such as pins and other types of structures designed to provide a retaining function for a pin.
Claims 2, 3, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected as depending from claims 1 or 16, but are not in-and-of-themselves subject to further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Patent 8,454,187) in view of JP’812 (JP58-116812U, references to the description herein made to the google English translation of an image of the original patent document, with references to the figures directed to the original document).
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Chen et al. disclose a modular lighted tree comprising a trunk including a power converter #192, a plurality of wall mount connectors #220 (electrical connectors), a plurality of branches including a light string, the branches pivotally connected to a trunk portion via a branch support ring using a pin. The light strings include a connector that mates with the wall mount connector to detachably (releasably) fix the light string. See column 6 lines 15-25, column 6 line 45 - column 7 line 5, column 9 lines 42-60, and figures 2-4 and 15.
Chen et al. do not disclose how the pin is retained in the branch receiver, and thus does not explicitly disclose that the pin (fastener) is attached and detached by a cap with radially outward extending cavity, without the use of a tool such that cap can be reused. Different types or retaining parts are known for use in retaining a pin or shaft, including elastic retaining rings which include a radially outward extending cavity. JP’812 discloses a stop washer formed of an elastic material such as nylon which can simply be pushed on (page 2 lines 19-27 and figures). Given that retention rings are known including those made from elastic materials that can easily be pushed on, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to use the stop washer as the retention feature on the fastener of Chen, therefore providing a attachable and detachable cap that is reusable and does not require tools. The stop washer is understood to be reusable and attachable/detachable without tools as it is formed of a relatively thin elastic polymer and is described as usable by “simply pushing it in” (page 2 line 27). The elasticity also the washer to flex thereby alloying removal with less force and without breaking.
Regarding applicants’ claim 2, each trunk portion includes a wiring harness such that the trunk of the artificial tree comprises a plurality of wiring harnesses (#214, #230). The trunk portions include a plurality of electrical connectors (#220) which are operable to connect to the light strings such that the light strings on the branches receive power from the tree trunk through a detachable connection between wall mount connectors (#220) and connector (#224). See Figure 4.
Regarding applicants’ claim 3, the branches are positioned concentrically around the trunk when attached to the trunks via branch support rings (figures 2 and 14).
Regarding applicants’ claim 7, the trunk of Chen comprises multiple trunk portions that include a plurality of wall mount connectors connected to a wiring harness, the wiring harness thereby serving as a hub for distributing power to each of the wall mount connectors. Each trunk portion further includes a trunk connector assembly for electrically connecting adjacent trunk portions. The wiring harness is considered a power distribution hub where it supplies power to a plurality of wall mount connectors, the wall mount connectors operable to connect to the light strings on the plurality of branches. See figures 2 and 4.
Regarding applicants’ claim 13, the wiring harnesses disclosed by Chen et al. are operable to send a control signal to adjust the lights where the airing harness comprises electrical wires capable of transmitting electrical signals thereby having sufficient structure to function in the claimed manner i.e. send a control signal to the lights.
Regarding applicants’ claims 14 and 15, the branches of Chen et al. include both primary and secondary branch extensions where the light strings on the branches are configured to detachably connect to the wall mount electrical connectors on the trunk. See column 6 lines 54-64 and figure 2.
Regarding applicants’ claim 16, to assemble the tree of Chen et al. the plurality of branches and light strings would be installed by releasably mechanically connecting the branches to the branch support rings with a pin, and detachably electrically connecting the light strings to the wall mount connectors on the trunk portions. Chen et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose that the light strings are preinstalled on the branches, however the selection of the order in which the light strings are installed is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to preinstall the light strings on the branches so that the both the branches and light strings may be mounted on the tree simultaneously. By leaving the light strings attached to the branches the tree may be assembled and disassembled in fewer steps and without the interference of adjacent branches while attaching the light strings to the branches.
Regarding applicants’ claim 17, Chen et al. disclose the light strings as affixed to the branches (column 7 lines 17-18) and therefore fastened to the branches. The term fastened as claimed does not confer a particular means of fastening.
Regarding applicants claim 18, Chen et al. do not appear to disclose that the branch assemblies with a light string are moved to another facility, however the examiner previously took official notice that it is common practice to manufacture items at one location and move them to another location for use or sale. Given that applicants have not traversed the statement of official notice the statement is taken as admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03 C). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, would have found it obvious to manufacture the artificial trees in one facility and move them to another location for sale to consumers, or directly to consumers for use in their homes and businesses.
Regarding applicants’ claim 19, the wall mounted electrical connectors of Chen et al. are electrically connected to the wiring harnesses with the trunk portions and therefore connecting the light strings to the wall mount electrical connectors electrically connects the light strings to the wiring harnesses (figure 4).
Regarding applicants’ claim 20, the wiring harness of each trunk section is connected to each subsequent electrical connection assembly and finally to a power converter (#192). The connection assemblies are considered a distribution hub where the source power to each subsequent branch. Alternatively, each trunk portion is electrically connected in series to the power converter such that the power converter may be considered a distribution hub to which each winging harness is serially connected.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Patent 8,454,187) in view of JP’812 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cunningham (US Patent 1,218,527) and Powell (US Patent 3,968,987).
Regarding applicants’ claim 6, Chen et al. as modified by JP’812 disclose an artificial tree as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but do not appear to explicitly disclose the fastener assembly to include a cotter pin. Where the branches of Chen et al. are fastened to the branch support rings with the pin, the pin is a clevis pin and the receiving portion of the branch support ring is a clevis where it accommodates the branch such that a hole is positioned on either side to accommodate the pin. Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of a cotter pin, however the use of a cotter pin to secure a fastener is known and can be employed with predictable results. Cunningham discloses a clevis including a stud (#17) with a threaded end which receives a nut (#16), where the nut and stud are apertured to receive a cotter pin to prevent the nut from working loose (page 1 lines 50-55). Powell disclose a bell housing assembly which includes a shank (#21) having a threaded terminal end secured with a nut (#22), where the threaded portion of the shank and the nut are provided with a transverse opening for a cotter pin for preventing the nut from accidently becoming loosened (column 2 lines 53-62).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to introduce a cotter pin to the fastener of Chen thereby ensuring the pin remains securely in place.
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. ‘187 (US Patent 8,454,187) in view of JP’812, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Chen ‘404 (US Patent 8,870,404).
Regarding applicants’ claim 8, Chen et al. ‘187 as modified by JP’812 disclose an artificial tree including a removable fastener as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but do not appear to explicitly disclose the use of more than one voltage, however Chen et al. ‘404 disclose a dual voltage lighted artificial tree which allows for the connection of devices which operate from different power types such as those operating off of DC power and those operating from 110 or 120VAC (col. 1 line 1 - col. 2 line 14). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious distribute power at more than one voltage in the tree of Chen et al. ‘187 such that the tree would be capable of powering of lights, ornaments, and other devices which operate from different power types.
Regarding applicants’ claim 9, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to adjust the number of lights being powdered by each tree section based on aesthetic design choice. When lighting a cone shaped evergreen one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the tree with an even distribution of lights on the branch assemblies. Given that lower segments of a conical evergreen have larger/longer branch assemblies, the branch ring would power a larger number of lights which are required to cover the larger branch area.
Regarding applicants’ claim 10, where the tree is modified to distribute power at different voltages, each trunk section would include a means for distributing each type of voltage and therefore where multiple voltages are used the trunk segments must include a distribution hub for providing power at each voltage for which the tree is configured.
Regarding applicants’ claim 11, Chen ‘404 does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of a first and second voltage of 17 and 23 volts respectively, however one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select the first and second voltages to provide the specific power levels required depending on the needs of the devices being powered. Applicants’ specification has been reviewed with respect to the use of 17 and 23 volts however there was insufficient evidence such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded a tree comprising the claimed voltages to exhibit unexpected results, when compared with any other particular set of voltages.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US Patent 8,454,187) in view of JP’812, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hiering et al. (US Patent 5,034,658).
Chen et al. as modified by JP’812 disclose an artificial tree as discussed above with respect to claim 1, but do not appear to explicitly disclose the use of wireless power to distribute power to the plurality of lights. Hierign et al. disclose an illumination stem for a Christmas tree where light emitting elements can be powered with zero contact (col. 2 lines 1-13). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use the zero contact system of Hiering et al. with the light strings of Chen et al. in order to eliminate the need to plug the branch segments into and electrical connector, thus simplifying the assembly process.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicants’ amendments to the claims filed January 19, 2026 have overcome rejections in view of the YouTube Video and Yao et al. Applicants’ arguments have been considered and are in-part found to be persuasive. Yao et al. while no longer the basis of a rejection remains pertinent to the art of retaining fasteners.
Applicants’ argue that the fasteners depicted by applicants would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a cap and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is meant by a cap. However it remains unclear what other style retaining devices are reasonably considered a cap given applicants description of figures 14A and 14B as including caps #1410 and #1412. Does a “cap” reasonably includes retaining pins, e style retaining rings, threaded nuts, washers, internal tooth lock washers, or rings with an interference fit. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that fasteners such as the retaining rings as depicted in applicants’ figure 14 reasonably constitute a ‘cap’. While applicants may be their own lexicographer, “The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess.” MPEP 2111.01 IV. Here, applicants have not disavowed or disclaimed the full scope of a claim term in the specification, as well as, clearly set forth a special definition of the claimed term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicants’ arguments that the Palnut retention ring does not satisfy the claimed requirement of being attachable and detachable without the use of a tool and being reusable is persuasive. Further the specific embodiments of Yao et al. figures 7A and 7B fail to possess, by themselves, the claimed structure. However the use of different retaining structures is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. Yao et al. for example disclose two known functionally equivalent means for retaining a pin through the use of a threaded fastener or a pinch-style mechanism, both of which provide for detachably connecting in manner that allows reuse.
Elastic stop washers are also known to retain a fasteners such as disclosed by JP’812 which discloses an elastic stop washer formed of an elastic material with a radially extending aperture. The use of nylon or other elastic material allows the portions of the aperture which engage the fastener to flex thereby allowing simple installation the flexibility to be removed without damage to the “teeth” therefore allowing reuse. While each retention mechanism has slightly different modes of providing removable and reusable function, applicants have not demonstrated that the claimed features are patentably distinguishable from known and available retention devices, or that the claimed mechanism is unexpectedly critical in achieving a particular advantage for the specific use claimed. Absent a showing of unexpected results, or that the claimed retention device posses a structure not previously known, the artificial tree as claimed does not distinguish over Chen et al. in view of known fasteners as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights