DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/19/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purdy, U.S. Patent 4,552,247.
Regarding claim 1, Purdy discloses a tree stand comprising: a ladder (16, 14); a platform carriage (56) multi-pivotably coupled to the ladder (via 12), and a platform (76) movably coupled to the platform carriage.
Regarding claim 2, Purdy discloses a tree stand wherein the platform carriage is multi- pivotally coupled to the ladder (via 58, 86, 88).
Regarding claim 3, Purdy discloses a tree stand further comprising a plurality of pivot arms (components 84) coupling the platform carriage to the ladder.
Regarding claim 4, Purdy discloses a tree stand further comprising six pivot joints coupling the platform carriage to the ladder (both each of components 58, 86, 88).
Regarding claim 5, Purdy discloses a tree stand wherein less than seven pivot joints couple the platform carriage to the ladder (both each of components 58, 86, 88).
Regarding claim 6, Purdy discloses a tree stand wherein the platform carriage is configured to be detachable from the ladder (when 12 is released from 16; col. 4, line 6), wherein the platform carriage is configured to be attachable to a first side of the ladder (as shown in the Figures), and wherein the platform carriage is configured to be separately attachable to a second side of the ladder (should the ladder section be attached in an opposite orientation). The phrases “configured to be detachable from the ladder,” “configured to be attachable to a first side of the ladder,” and “configured to be separately attachable to a second side of the ladder” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Purdy discloses a tree stand comprising: a rest (76); a means for elevating the rest above the ground level (12, 14, 16); and a means for adjustably positioning the rest relative to the means for elevating the rest (hinges 86, 88, 58).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy, U.S. Patent 4,552,247 in view of Mintz, U.S. Patent 5,267,632.
Regarding claim 7, Purdy discloses a tree stand wherein the ladder is comprised of sections which may be disassembled (when sections 16, 14 are released from one another; col. 4, line 6), but does not disclose the ladder is foldable. Mintz teaches a ladder having sections (11, 12) hingedly attached so that the ladder may fold (via hinge 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the ladder with hinged sections so that the ladder may fold for convenience of assembly and disassembly.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art as modified discloses a tree stand wherein the ladder comprises a first runged section (16), wherein the ladder comprises a second runged section (14), and wherein the ladder comprises a hinge (22) pivotally coupling the first runged section to the second runged section.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy, U.S. Patent 4,552,247 in view of Mintz, U.S. Patent 5,267,632 and Parsons, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0009803.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art as modified discloses a tree stand having a ladder comprised of sections connected by a hinge, but does not specifically disclose wherein the hinge comprises a male hinge node extending from the first post, wherein the hinge comprises a second post, wherein the hinge comprises a female hinge node extending from the second post, wherein the male hinge node and the female hinge node are configured to mate together, wherein the male hinge node and the female hinge node are configured to cooperate to pivot relative to each other about a first axis, wherein the male hinge node and the female hinge node are configured to cooperate to prevent substantial rotation of the first post relative to the second post about a second axis, and wherein the male hinge node and the female hinge node are configured to cooperate to limit a pivotal range of motion between the first post and the second post. Parsons teaches a hinge having male (24) and female (40) parts which cooperate to form the hinge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize such a hinge for effective rotation of the ladder sections with respect to one another, as clevis and flange hinges are known in the art. The phrases “configured to mate together,” “configured to cooperate to pivot relative to each other about a first axis,” “configured to cooperate to prevent substantial rotation of the first post relative to the second post about a second axis,” and “configured to cooperate to limit a pivotal range of motion between the first post and the second post” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633